Most French people are unaware of the existence of the Interministerial Delegation for the fight against racism, anti-Semitism and anti-LGBT hatred (Dilcrah). The dissolution of the scientific council of this government body, on January 20, is not likely to move them. And yet, the storm that has fallen on this body is surprising as it demonstrates a catastrophic management, by the government, of the new ideological-identity debates. The unease reached its climax on September 23, 2022, when, behind closed doors of a stormy meeting, one of the members divided the assembly into two very distinct “camps”. “We trusted you to qualify the Avignon fresco as anti-Semitic, trust us that the Little Mermaid Observatory is transphobic”, launched this researcher, according to Point – assertion confirmed by many interlocutors. A terrible statement that divides the fight against discrimination into communities, without regard or common conscience.
Like a kaleidoscope, this “you” and this “we” create many facets. It is, first of all, about exonerating oneself from a work of conviction: it is always more comfortable to have recourse to an argument from authority – “trust us, we know”. Is it also a coincidence that the subject of anti-Semitism was discussed? In the “intersectional” reading grid, in full swing on the left, the Jews are often the great forgotten of the category of “dominated”. And precisely, during this exchange, there was a long question of the “domination” that the “big boys” of the scientific council would exercise over their younger colleagues. Some have seen in it a theorization, conscious or unconscious, of the opposition between an “old school” of intellectuals, absorbed by anti-Semitism, won over to universalism and perceived as “reactive” because cautious on the trans question, against a more progressive succession, described by some as “woke”, engaged in LGBT struggles. Between these two manifestly irreconcilable lefts of the Dilcrah, an impossible dialogue, concretized after a few upheavals by the scuttling of January 20, validated by the Minister Isabelle Rome, in charge of Equality between women and men, and by Matignon.
Conflict of interest of Smaïn Laacher
The controversy was arbitrated by the Dilcrah in the worst way. In May 2022, the media sociologist Karine Espineira, member of the scientific council, resigned to protest against the membership of Smaïn Laacher, president of this same scientific council, to the Observatory of the little mermaid. This association, founded by psychoanalysts Céline Masson and Caroline Eliacheff, wants to alert on the “possible drifts” of gender transitions on the increase among minors. An avatar of La Manif pour tous, raise the collectives for the defense of trans people, which the interested parties refute.
After a few twists and turns, the Dilcrah decides to file a complaint against the Observatory of the Little Mermaid, via article 40 of the code of criminal procedure. Masson and Eliacheff are criticized for advising psychiatrists, on their site, of a “cautious” attitude towards trans minors. “It is very important to support and accompany patients with a great openness of mind, but it is rarely effective from a therapeutic point of view to push the patient to concretize all their ideas and beliefs”, it is written in particular. .
“It could be likened to a conversion therapy”, then suspects the Dilcrah. An argument supported by associations which consider that transidentity should be treated like sexual orientation. “We wouldn’t think of challenging a young gay man by suggesting to him that he might still be hetero,” explained a connoisseur of these files.
Caution from the Academy of Medicine
There may come a day when society has evolved to the point where this approach becomes obvious. This is not the case today and the Academy of Medicine had called, on February 25, 2022, for “great medical caution in children and adolescents, given the vulnerability, in particular psychological, of this population and the many adverse effects, even serious complications, that some of the therapies available can cause”. The report of the Dilcrah was dismissed on January 11.
The Dilcrah wanted to demonstrate a clear commitment against transphobia. But by interfering in the health debate rather than aiming for clearly offensive remarks, it will only have succeeded in fueling the confusion of the debate, the logics of discredit and “victim competition”. Not sure that the fight against discrimination – including against trans people – really wins out.