The threat to trans rights has grown exponentially since Oliver Haimson began researching for his new book, Trans Technologies. Now, his exploration of the way trans creatives build apps and websites to help their communities has become more relevant than ever.
Haimson, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Information, told LGBTQ Nation that he is concerned for the “bedroom creators,” individuals who might be skilled coders but are less likely to be experts in security and digital safety.
“If these systems are not secure, then especially if they [make] a system where people are sharing personal information or medical information, something like that, if that were to be accessed by the wrong people, then that’s going to be really dangerous.”
As an umbrella term, trans technologies include everything from apps to track your hormones to websites that monitor anti-trans bills to programs that help people find gender-neutral bathrooms and support helplines.
For the book, Haimson spoke to more than 100 creators to understand “what motivates people to spend a lot of time and energy and resources” creating these tools.
Haimson said the overall response to the current anti-trans onslaught when it comes to trans technologies has been both hopeful and depressing. On the one hand, the political moment is being met head-on. “This is really cool that people are creating these tools of resistance with technology,” he said.
But while resistance is key, Haimson suspects it comes at a cost. “We see people channeling rage and creativity into games and art, and those things can be resistance technologies, but sometimes they’re just outlets for creativity. And we see plenty of that, but imagine how much more of those just fun technologies we would see if people weren’t just always trying to survive.”
It’s hard to see a solution to all of these concerns, but Haimson suggests that it starts by bringing the right people together and recognizing each other’s strengths and weaknesses. He highlights three groups: people who have ideas and understand the community; people who have the technical skills for creation; and those who have the resources to deploy and maintain technologies.
“There needs to be some kind of broker, someone who connects these groups of people. I’ve been thinking about it sort of like a hackathon, except much more sustainable and long-term. You bring people together to create teams that will last for the long term.”
Considering current politics, Haimson adds, “I think there’s maybe a fourth group of people that we would want to include: people who really understand security and can make sure that these technologies are going to be safe.”
The capitalist dilemma
During his research, Haimson also concluded that one of the biggest hindrances to the success of trans technologies is something founders can’t outrun: capitalism.
“In a lot of cases, capitalism is fundamentally not the system that trans technologies would really thrive in,” he said. “And yet even creators of trans technology who fully embrace more of an anti-capitalist approach, we all still have to live in this capitalist system.”
Haimson described the three models he has seen for trans technologies under capitalism and the challenges each faces.
The first is a small group of companies that are funded by venture capital, accepting money from people who are keen to make as much profit as possible. “That comes with a lot of strings attached. And there are some that have made that work really well. The two examples that I think have been most successful are Folx Health and Bloom… Those are ones that have taken investment funding, worked within the system of capitalism, and actually do help a ton of people.”
Haimson notes that there are strong apps and other technologies that have proven to be unsustainable under that model in the long term. “Throwing a ton of money at a trans technology is not actually more likely to make it long-term sustainable, which is, I think, surprising.”
At the other end of the spectrum are individual creators working on passion projects in their spare time with no money tied to them. “And that’s really cool in some ways because there’s no strings attached. You don’t have to care about what some rich person values or even what customers value. But the problem there is burnout.”
But Haimson sees a Goldilocks situation with the three models: a middle-ground solution is best. “There’s a smaller number of trans technologies that are in the middle, using a small business model or a nonprofit or membership-based model. People aren’t just working by themselves, so they’re less isolated. They’re less likely to completely burn out. But, they also don’t have these major investment funders who are dictating what they can and can’t do.”
All of these middle-ground models have one thing in common: a reliance on community backing. Haimson points to Trans Lifeline as one such organization that runs on donations and grants. “If they’re not doing what the community wants, then people are not going to be donating as much. And so I think it really kind of forces a community-based approach in some ways. We’re still so much within these capitalist systems that we can’t escape, but I think that there is some future there with these kinds of midsize organizations.”
Survival versus principles
While a community-focused approach might be a more successful model, it is far from an easy answer. For a marginalized community working in a capitalist framework where people still have to get by, reaching for venture capital can be tempting. Haimson mentioned one small business that provided supplies for trans medicine that was run by someone with a strong anti-capitalist ethos, but has since been bought out by Folx Health.
“I think there’s just a lot of ambivalence here, because people have to survive, and if you can actually make money doing what you love, then I think that’s a good way to live. And, you know, trans people just want to live their lives at the end of the day like everyone else.”
Another challenge for founders is their ability to identify the needs of the broader trans community. A major factor in many existing trans technologies is that their creators are trans themselves and are filling a need that they’ve experienced in their own lives, rather than to pursue financial gain.
The creator of the HRT-tracking app Shot TraX, for example, found the need and then built the first version in only an hour. There was fine-tuning and improvements down the line, but the app is still run by a team of just two people. “They basically created something that a lot of people were able to also find value in,” Haimson said.
But trans people are not a monoculture, and the lived experience of any single creator is often going to be very different from many of the diverse potential users.
“The creators of trans technology are much more likely to be white,” Haimson said. “They’re more likely to be affluent. They’re more likely to be highly educated. They may think that they know what the needs are of the broader trans population. But even if they’re trying really hard to meet those needs, they’re not going to get it quite right.”
Haimson shakes his head as he mentions that he hasn’t come across document-related technologies that help to update the name and gender marker on your ID and passport, despite the clear need for it.
“It’s not enough for technology just to be created by trans people. It also needs to take a community-based approach. Based on years of research that’s been community-based, I think safety is a huge concern. And there are some safety technologies, but there’s definitely not enough. And so there is this mismatch there.”
Community outreach might be crucial, but it is also hard and expensive to do right. When asked if there was anyone in the trans technology space doing it really well, Haimson pointed to another mismatch.
“The strange thing is the people who are doing this really well tend to be academics. The problem is that as academics, we’re incentivized to design things: we can publish papers about design. But we’re not at all incentivized to actually deploy or maintain technologies. And so you have so many cases where people are doing this really great human-centered design process, they’re really engaging with communities, they design something amazing. And then nothing ever happens with it.”
Not only is this frustrating to academics, but it also damages the potential for long-term relationships and trust with communities that feel their input is ignored and therefore not worth the time and effort to provide.
The future is trans
Haimson highlighted some key trans technologies that have already been launched or are currently in development. The Trans Formations Project tracks all trans bills that are proposed on both the state and national levels and makes it easier to keep up with legislation that might affect you.
Erin in the Morning, run by independent trans journalist Erin Reed, provides an Anti-Trans National Risk Assessment Map, which visualizes how safe different states are to live in. Haimson has seen it used by people deciding where to relocate for their own safety.
Finally, Haimson gave a glimpse into a trans technology that his own team is developing right now.
They have found that trans people have shown a lot of interest in augmented reality, but that available “gender swap” face filters fall short of meeting most trans people’s desires: “They’re all very binary. They look at your face, they try to determine what your gender is, and then they show you what they think the opposite of that is in a very stereotypical way.”
Haimson and his team are trying to fill that gap and are working on a face filter app that is tailored for the trans experience.
“It can show you how you might look after taking HRT for a number of years, but then there’s also parts of it that are not as realistic because sometimes it’s fun just to explore different things that you wouldn’t necessarily actually want.” The filter won’t be available in the short term, but Haimson, his postdoc Kat Brewster, and his students, are excited for its future.
