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

Abstract

Gender recognition law reforms, proposing greater trans equality and agency, are pivotal moments of hope for gender minorities, but they can also result in harmful public debates. Pairing the theories of recognition and epistemic injustice, we examine trans experiences of epistemic recognition in relation to the Finnish Trans Act reform debate. Through thematic analysis of 31 semi-structured interviews with trans and non-binary individuals, we show that the denial of epistemic recognition and respect in the context of – sometimes demeaning or hostile – public debate can harm trans individuals’ social trust. This can erode their sense of safety and trust in daily social encounters but also amplify distrust towards epistemic institutions they perceive to deny their epistemic recognition. While increased media interest can provide opportunities for epistemic empowerment, trans individuals might, due to the loss of social trust, disengage with mainstream media and refrain from participating in public discourse concerning their own rights.

Introduction

After more than a decade (since 2013) of campaigning efforts by trans activists, human rights organizations (Right to Be, KAA6/2021, 2021) and the Finnish Equality Ombudsman (K22/2018, 2018), Finland’s parliament passed the Act on Legal Recognition of Gender (known as ‘the Trans Act’) in February 2023. Finland followed in the footsteps of countries such as Norway, Denmark and Iceland that had implemented gender recognition laws based on self-determination models (Köhler, 2022). They had demanded a reform of the act, also condemned by the European Court of Human Rights (ECRI, 2019), because its sterilization requirement violated constitutional and human rights. The new legislation removes the requirement for trans people ¹ to be infertile and to obtain a psychiatric diagnosis to access legal gender recognition. Under the new legislation, self-declaration of permanently identifying as the gender they are seeking the recognition for is sufficient. However, the act limits the right of legal gender recognition to persons over the age of 18 years and includes only two legal gender markers (‘male’ and ‘female’), not recognizing non-binary gender.

Gender recognition law reforms, proposing greater trans inclusion and agency, are pivotal moments of hope for gender minorities (Casey et al., 2023; Riggle et al., 2018), but they can also result in harmful public debates in which media play a central role (Montiel-McCann, 2023; Pfannebecker and Kay, 2021). The psychological literature has addressed the negative impact of public debates related to minority rights on the psychological wellbeing of sexual minorities (Anderson et al., 2020; Ecker and Lykins, 2023; Maisel and Fingerhut, 2011; Rostosky et al., 2010). However, the effects of mediated public debates on sexual and gender minorities’ social lives remain under-researched.

This article examines trans experiences of epistemic recognition, referring to the epistemic aspects of recognition and political struggles over it. Epistemic recognition offers a conceptual tool to examine trans individuals’ marginalization as knowers (e.g. Fricker and Jenkins, 2017; Pearce, 2018; Radi, 2019; Schey, 2022). We pair the theories of recognition and epistemic injustice. While the concept of epistemic injustice (Fricker, 2007) renders visible the ways in which trans individuals are wronged and harmed in their capacity as knowers, theories of recognition (Honneth, 1995; Taylor, 1994) connect epistemic wrongs to social identities and social conflicts, focusing on the question of whether individuals and groups are recognized by other social groups and authorities in their struggles over recognition. Trust is a prerequisite for mutual recognition (Petherbridge, 2021), whereas the denial of recognition can harm trust in oneself and in others (Honneth, 1995). Accordingly, epistemic recognition requires a reciprocal relationship where individuals and social groups are respected and recognized in their ability to produce knowledge and to share social understandings (Fricker, 2018).

Empirically, we add to the existing research by addressing trans experiences of epistemic recognition in relation to the public debate on the Trans Act conducted in the parliament, mainstream media and social media. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with trans and non-binary individuals, we zoom in on both individual and social impacts resulting from the trans rights campaign and the associated debate. In our analysis, we ask how trans people (1) perceived their epistemic recognition vis-a-vis the mediated public discourse regarding their right to self-determination, (2) what impacts the debate had on their social trust and (3) how they coped with and countered the erasure of their experiences and knowledge. By centring trans meaning-making and experiences in our inquiry, we seek to give voice to those whose everyday lives are shaped by legal and social responses to their struggles for recognition. After introducing the Finnish Trans Act reform debate, the article proceeds to discuss the key theoretical concepts, epistemic injustice and recognition. This is followed by a description of the methodology and empirical material. After that we present our findings, organized under the themes of epistemic injustices, social trust and epistemic resistance.

Context: polarized public debate about the Finnish trans act reform

Finland and the Nordic countries in general are seen as models for gender equality. However, these countries also have high levels of gender-based violence, leading to the so-called ‘Nordic paradox’ (Nousiainen, 2024). In an annual survey comparing LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex) rights (ILGA, 2023), Finland ranks highly among European countries. The survey, however, notes a trend of rising hate-speech by Finnish politicians. This links to the hardening of public rhetoric due to the right-wing populism that has gathered wide support across Europe, as well as to the rising anti-gender politics seeking to limit gender equality and trans inclusion (e.g. Bassi and LaFleur, 2022). Research shows that gender minorities in Finland continue to experience discrimination and harassment in their everyday lives (EU-LGBTI II, 2020; OM, 2021).

The Finnish Trans Act reform and the associated debate that received considerable media attention forms the sociocultural backdrop of this study. For trans individuals, legal gender recognition is a key human rights issue that has been characterized by restrictive and unattainable preconditions set by the state (Dunne, 2014; Sørlie, 2023). Legal gender categories, however, have also been seen as limiting the definition of gender, reinforcing norms rather than recognizing gender diversity (Aboim, 2020). In addition, public debate about LGBTIQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer) rights can cause harm to sexual and gender minority individuals’ wellbeing by exacerbating feelings of alienation and contributing to cultural stigma (Anderson et al., 2020; Ecker and Lykins, 2023; Maisel and Fingerhut, 2011; Rostosky et al., 2010). Globally, increased media visibility of trans claims for justice have resulted in ruptures of anti-LGBTIQ discourse and transphobia (Miles, 2022; Montiel-McCann, 2023; Pfannebecker and Kay, 2021), defined as trans moral panics (Hines, 2020; Mestre i Mestre, 2022; Slothouber, 2020).

In Finland, the political rhetoric concerning the Trans Act reform followed the patterns seen elsewhere: greater trans recognition and self-determination was framed by conservative and far-right political forces as jeopardizing cisgender women’s rights and children’s safety, or as a conspiracy relating to ‘gender ideology’, propagated by LGBTIQ organizations (Hartline, 2020; Mestre i Mestre, 2022; Montiel-McCann, 2023; Pfannebecker and Kay, 2021; Sapountzis et al., 2023). Politicians opposing the reform mainly represented the populist Finns Party and Christian Democrats. Their rhetoric in parliament (www.parliament.fi) centred around arguments that the law could be exploited by malign actors: ‘. . . there are also safety aspects involved. Imagine a man who is a paedophile, and he changes his gender to a woman. He gets to watch all our children in the dressing rooms’ (MP Mari Rantanen, Finns Party). Gender variance beyond sex assigned at birth was also questioned, as in the statement of a leading Christian Democrat politician, hinting at a gender conspiracy:

More and more young people are presented with gender transition, the idea of being born the wrong gender, as a solution to the confusion and problems of adolescence, and internationally networked, heavily funded LGBTIQ organizations have a strong influence, especially on social media. (MP Päivi Räsänen, Christian Democrats)

The role of mainstream media in framing and amplifying trans rights debates is studied in different contexts and genres (e.g. GLAAD, Montiel-McCann, 2023; Pfannebecker and Kay, 2021; Sapountzis et al., 2023; Slothouber, 2020). Research shows that news media coverage plays a key role in (de)legitimizing and disseminating transgender voices and affects attitudes towards trans people (e.g. Billard, 2016; Li, 2023). Misrepresentation and sensationalist news reporting are shown to increase the threat of harassment experienced by trans individuals (Humphrey, 2016).

An increasing body of literature has addressed social media as a critical space for facilitating trans people’s agency through self-representation and community-building (e.g. Ciszek et al., 2023; Hokkanen, 2023; Raun, 2016). Social media may foreground the voices of trans people, but visibility-based strategies can also conceal structural inequalities with false promises of redistribution of power and resources, suggesting greater progress in trans equality than has been achieved (Berberick, 2018; Ciszek et al., 2023). In addition, visibility at an individual level predisposes trans people to victimization (Colliver and Silvestri, 2022). While trans activists must make trans populations visible to improve their recognition, paradoxically, legal gender recognition processes exist, in part, to ensure that an individual’s trans status is rendered invisible to avoid discrimination and institutional exclusion (Wundram Pimentel and Leonardo Segura, 2018). Finally, increasing media visibility does not equal increased epistemic agency in public discourse.

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.

Methodology

Interviews were conducted with trans individuals between September 2020 and September 2023 (out of a total of 31 interviews, 18 were conducted in 2020–2021 and 13 in 2023). Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were deployed as a data collection method as they enabled examining trans individuals’ lived experiences and meaning-making (Warren, 2001). In 2020-2021, all interviews were conducted via Zoom due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2023, seven interviews were conducted in person and six via Zoom. The interviews lasted between 50 and 120 minutes. The empirical data consists of 336 pages of transcribed interviews.

Finding participants can be difficult with a stigmatizing research topic and when the demographic of participants is rare in the population (Warren, 2001). The participants were recruited on social media and through LGBTIQ organizations in Finland that shared the research invitation to their networks. While we did not specifically target trans activists, recruiting participants through LGBTIQ organizations influenced the demographic of the participants, several of whom were actively involved in the work of LGBTIQ organizations and activism. All participants’ genders fall under the trans umbrella. In other words, their gender identity does not align with their sex assigned at birth. The participants identified their gender as (trans) women (n = 9), (trans) men (n = 8) or non-binary (n = 14). Some non-binary participants also used other terms, such as gender non-conforming or agender, to describe their identities, while some trans men and women used the Finnish term ‘with trans background’ (transtaustainen). Participants’ ages range from 18 to 60 years, and two-thirds of them live in the capital region of Finland. Ensuring anonymity and voluntary participation were key ethical considerations: participants were informed in detail about the research aim and the option to withdraw from the research at any moment. We do not describe the participants’ ages, places of residence, occupations or other personal information in detail.

Participants were told that they would be interviewed about their experiences and views related to the Trans Act debate and trans rights more broadly, and the implications these had for their daily lives. In the semi-structured interview they were asked, for example, if trans voices were heard in the media and whether they had participated in the debate or had other opportunities to share knowledge and to influence decision-making. Participants were also asked if the debate had an impact on their social trust.

The interviews were conducted by a trans researcher, which helped to establish rapport with the participants. Several participants explained that knowing the interviewer was also trans made them feel more at ease because of a shared understanding of terminology and trans lived experiences. The interviews were designed to give participants freedom to speak in their own words, and the interviewer took a role as an active listener (see Talmage, 2012), asking follow-up questions based on their answers.

We use trans as an umbrella term, referring to various gender identities and expressions and, although we discuss trans lived experiences, we recognize the reductive nature of assuming a universally shared trans experience. We understand that other areas of sociocultural positionality and identity (e.g. class, race, sexual orientation, ability, etc.) have a profound impact on social experiences.

Interviews were analysed using the six-phase approach of thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). First, interviews were transcribed, and the initial codes were generated to identify emerging themes about the participants’ descriptions relating to the Trans Act debate and trans knowledge production more broadly. A mix of inductive and deductive analysis was used (see Vaismoradi et al., 2013). The literature on epistemic injustice informed the deductive coding: concepts, such as testimonial and hermeneutical injustice, were employed to code the participants’ experiences. The initial themes concerning trans rights debates and trans knowledge production more broadly were reviewed and narrowed down to three themes related to participants’ experiences of epistemic recognition within the context of the Trans Act debate. The first theme, which we label feeling invisible in the public debate, illustrates the ways in which respondents described their experiences of testimonial and hermeneutical injustice. The second theme, feeling unsafe: severed trust in the self and others, is informative of the ways in which epistemic forms of injustices impact trans people’s experiences of trust. The third theme, counter-hegemonic trans knowledges and practices as epistemic resistance, demonstrates how participants resist the denial of epistemic recognition they experience.

Findings

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.

Discussion

This article sheds light on the under-researched topic of trans epistemic recognition amid intense media coverage and public discourse surrounding trans rights. Previous research on trans experiences has largely focused on the Anglo-American context. The Trans Act reform presents an opportunity to examine trans experiences in Finland, a Nordic welfare society that is often seen as a model country for gender equality.

We highlight that trans struggles for (gender) recognition are fundamentally epistemic in nature. The denial of trans individuals’ self-determination that is evident in the history of restrictive gender recognition laws (Dunne, 2014; Sørlie, 2023) is also reflected in the public discourse on trans rights. Our findings indicate that trans people experience erasure of epistemic agency concerning their own lives, as trans voices are overridden by those of cis authorities, or public fears. This creates a gap in the collective understanding of trans lived experiences and fosters a fertile environment for moral panics to emerge as a hermeneutical backlash to trans claims for justice (George and Goguen, 2021). Non-binary participants in our study felt particularly invisible in the debate because their right for legal gender recognition was dismissed. Our findings are in line with previous research that has focused on trans experiences of epistemic injustice in healthcare (Freeman and Stewart, 2022; Pearce, 2018) and education (Schey, 2022; Steele and Nicholson, 2020).

We contribute to the literature by showing that the denial of epistemic recognition in the context of public debates can harm trans individuals’ experiences of social trust. Our findings suggest that the hostile and othering rhetoric online, but also in the mainstream media, can leave trans individuals questioning their social value. Moreover, the sociocultural devaluation of knowledge based on trans lived experiences can erode trans individuals’ trust in epistemic institutions. This demonstrates that the injury to self-trust, caused by denial of epistemic recognition, can harm marginalized groups’ ability to participate in practices that promote emancipatory social change (Giladi, 2018). Loss of social trust impacts trans individuals’ lives by shattering their sense of safety. Our research demonstrates that divisive public debate and media reporting negatively impact trans people’s trust in daily social encounters, but also in their trust towards institutions that they perceive to deny their epistemic recognition, such as the media. Distrust towards the news media made participants disengage from news reporting on the Trans Act, which, together with withdrawing from online discussions, were attempts to protect their wellbeing. However, these acts also demonstrate the serious implications that the denial of epistemic recognition can have on a marginalized group’s ability – or desire – to participate in public debates concerning their own rights.

Law reforms and the associated public debates that span several years can provide a forum for epistemic resistance and empowerment. Trans individuals participated in various forms of epistemic resistance from blogging to media appearances. The participants highlighted various non-dominant hermeneutical resources (Mason, 2011), mainly online, that have given them opportunities for self-articulation and offered vital information about trans experiences that lack representation in society (e.g. Ciszek et al., 2023; Hokkanen, 2023; Raun, 2016). Our research demonstrates that trans individuals resist hermeneutical marginalization in public discourse with everyday visibility-based tactics, for example, by actively sharing knowledge about trans experiences in social encounters. As trans rights continue to generate political contention and media interest, it is imperative to continue to investigate the ways in which public debates alienate trans individuals – and to call for the responsibility of epistemic institutions such as the mainstream media in restoring their social trust through mutual epistemic recognition.