“There is an urge to be good. To be seen to be good. To be seen. Badness, invisibility, things as they are in reality as opposed to things as they seem, death itself—these are out of fashion.” So begins Zadie Smith’s, Now More Than Ever. A short story about a nightmarish, dystopian future where citizens live in fear of doing or saying something “
“There are species of lizard that can grow back their limbs if they're cut off. Shall I cut off your arm and see if it works on you?”
My wife just asked me why I was laughing so loud at my phone. I wish the whole debate were this funny, but it is not.
The truly astonishing thing is that Jared seems like a relatively well educated person who fell into what appears to be a cult. And this cult is swallowing up our scientific, educational and cultural institutions at breakneck speed. And politics at the highest level--President Biden slobbering all over the debasing parody of womanhood that is Dylan Mulvaney. Good God!!
I think that one of the most urgent social developments that needs to happen ASAP is that LGB needs to split from TQ now!!! The straight world doesn’t have the cred--that’s one reason why right wing “allies” are actually counterproductive. The TQs of this world glom onto the LGBs for an excellent reason. And it is not doing the LGBs ANY good.
"The TQs of this world glom onto the LGBs for an excellent reason. And it is not doing the LGBs ANY good."
Your ability to predict what I'm writing about us getting spooky😅 But yes, many LGB people are seeing how much damage the Q+ is doing. I think the T is kind of caught in the middle.
I don’t “predict” what you are writing; I think that our minds just work the same. I consider that an honor.
Are you familiar with the British nonprofit LGB? I read they have been labeled by some government or “watchdog” agency as a “hate group.” Is this true? If so, it’s revolting.
I look forward to your thoughts on this, Steve. And no, I can’t predict what they will be.🤣🤣🤣
Steve can ask Jared next time if he can eat his own shit to get back the nutrients he missed from the first pass-through like our distant cousins the guinea pigs ;)
Thank you Steve, for continuing to speak up for women. I swear to you, this crap is so in your face 24/7 it makes you want to move to the middle of the country and draw a ring around your land and tell the culture to take a flying leap.
And for Jared: I will not embrace delusion to make you feel better. I will not find obscure, non-human (or even human) examples at the extreme fringe to force a lie onto society.
And I have never cared how adults present or who they love or how they dress. Free choice baby. But to demand that I say something is true when it’s not is to ask me to live a lie. My integrity is what I have. You can’t have it.
What is truly funny in this exchange is Jared referring to evolution by natural selection and then saying of course there are more than two sexes. OK, great, what are they? How, exactly, does evolution by natural selection work if there are more than two kinds of gametes? What are the third, fourth, and fifth kind of gametes called? The bit about intersex people is also, as you point out, kind of a smokescreen, because saying something is kind of like A in some respects and kind of like B in some respects does not imply there's a third category C. The existence of intersex people is actually an argument <for> the sex binary, because if there was a third or fourth or fifth kind of gamete they'd show characteristics of those other imaginary sexes- but they don't, of course, they only show characteristics of male or female.
It's like, man, did you people not take high school biology? Or 6th grade sex ed?
I find it so exhausting, listening to the arguments of angry and sanctimonious people. I thank you for your cogency and patience. Even if they will never actually hear you, we will. Thank you for that.
Oh, Steve. You were only *assigned* two arms at birth by a very presumptuous doctor!!! Only you know in your heart how many arms you really have, or are meant to have, in order to be fully embodied as your true self.
Then there are the people who claim they are "gender fluid." What the hell is that? I'll resist the obvious obscene sarcasm. They are telling us that they are not gender dysphoric or conventionally gendered. Still only two sexes, but their gender identity is at best temporary. They at least don't argue that there are more than two sexes or genders.
Imagine a world where people cannot point out that absurdities are absurd. Oh wait!
😁 Not sure what it says about either of us that I instantly knew what you meant.
I think all of this is based on a deep, deep confusion about the difference between adherence to gendered stereotypes and biological sex. I often point out that it used to be the trans activists who reminded us that sex and gender are different things. And they were right. But that fact now conflicts with their sex abolitionist aims.
Yes, you did have less patience than usual, but I understand why.
I even laughed at the cheap shot (which I usually do not):
> However, if you think that solution is to "decriminalise all drugs," I think you need to take less drugs.
Smokescreen is the perfect description of the spray of irrelevant arguments that CSJ converts throw out to obscure any discussion, without actually supporting their position. Like clownfish changing sex, as if that had anything whatsoever to do with human gender identity vs biological sex.
I am more and more coming to the conclusion that treating CSJ ideology as a quasi-religion makes the most sense, as many have suggested. After a life changing conversion, the mind is harnessed to fabricate rationales for what the unconscious wants to believe. Unquestioning faith in, and defense of, the ideology become a key part of people's self-concept or identity, so changing it is framed as a deep threat. If they hold a view on any issue which is unorthodox within their circles, they may be slipping into Satan's grasp, or becoming a MAGA extremist.
Jonathan Haidt gives some good examples of the rationalization process in "The Righteous Mind".
"Assigned" has been adopted in so many places so quickly that it's terrifying. This is part of why it's become a legislative issue. In the face of the success of Critical Gender Theory, using the blunt hammer of the law to push it back is completely understandable, even though it's likely unwise. Law lacks nuance. But these ideas are poison.
""Assigned" has been adopted in so many places so quickly that it's terrifying."
Yep. Truly astonishing. I've spoken to many people who don't understand why the terminology is deliberately misleading. But yes, I think you can trace this back to the moment people were allowed to change the "F" on their birth certificate to an "M" (and vice versa). Writing a lie into law like this was always going to have unintended consequences (case in point I saw recently https://twitter.com/Araweel0Returns/status/1634211273427636224?s=20).
Why it's so awful to change it to trans woman/man I will never understand.
Brilliant as ever, Steve. Bookmarking this, as it contains all the essential cogent arguments against the trans ideology cult, although as clearly demonstrated here, there's little point using them against those who simply don't want to listen.
"it contains all the essential cogent arguments against the trans ideology cult"
Thanks Keith. Yep, this is why I thought the conversation was useful. I very rarely expect to change the mind of the person I'm talking to on trans issues (they'd never admit it even if I did). But other people who are less indoctrinated read them and are persuaded by them. That's my real target audience.
Once LGB wakes up to the harm T is causing them, and demands two sets of letters after divorcing TQIA, things will improve dramatically. The difficulty is the right wing overreaction to T, which really is the only glue holding the alphabet together.
Most of the right wing fervor is directed at T these days, and not LGB. The right lost the war against LGB, and now LGB has more to lose from T ideology than the right wing these days by quite a margin.
This is one reason why Pride is so incoherent these days.
There are many LGB doing just that! #LGBwithoutT, #LGB Alliance, and more. Many LGB have been critical and even speaking to how their own rights are compromised by the more unreasonable demands by 'T'. This is a very real and vocal position within the LGB community, even if many LGBTQIA institutions are against it.
I know a little of LGB Alliance and just looked up #LGBwithout. They are taking truly punishing heat--maybe the worst. You should see Reddit. I have corresponded with a number of Gs and Ls, mostly on Substack, who tell me that they privately are appalled at T activist positions, as are many of their friends, but they are terrified of speaking out.
This is consistent with Jonathan Haidt's observation that the most vituperative and cruel cancellations occur against dissidents "within the ranks." That is because only "within the ranks" cancellation can result in virtually complete social ostracism. Only your former "friends" are capable of that.
So, that is the stage we are in. But with greater numbers, the cancellations become less effective as the dissidents are less isolated.
As you know, I published a conversation with Brynoa. I said that I wouldn't use it to trash her and intended to let readers decide if her claims were fabulous, so I limited my comments with you to stay true to my word. It is becoming difficult to maintain politeness when claims go over the top.
I am an outsider who has not been elected speaker for LGB but I can't help but think that the T becoming the mouth of pride is not something that is helpful to LGB. Add to that the addition of new madeup subgroups to the community that isn't actually a community and you have a clusterfuck.
I certainly agree with the latter of your two paragraphs.
As for Bryona, I wish her the best. But I'm not going to self-censor to spare her or anyone else's feelings, though I endeavor to be civil when expressing my opinion. That this self-censorship is now "expected" among many people in 2023 is a bane of our times. All this crap about "safe spaces" and microaggressions and exaggerated claims of "genocide" and "trauma" and whatnot. Read Haidt's "The Coddling of the American Mind" for why it is so destructive of truth, freedom and humanity itself.
I have read some of Bryona's Substack writings. She is a good and sensitive writer, despite my severe misgivings about her empirical claims. Did you know that she was nearly 70 years old when she transitioned?
Yes. I asked if she thought that the various things she revealed were a factor in her successful transition. I don't think she really did say. Her transition was very different than what it would have been with the small genital tissue of a child. I mentioned that with no response. My voiced concerns that were not held back was my thoughts on transitioning children. I don't buy the, they know what they are as toddlers thing. I don't foresee myself ever thinking that a child should make such a critical decision as genital surgery.
I didn't know she was on substack. The "I have a prostate and vagina" response to my statement that drew her response was a hook that led me to not discourage discussion with the usual "Transphobe!" cry.
Steve you have patience and perseverance beyond my capacity. The truth, in its simplicity, is simply too much for some to comprehend. Lest I lean too philosophical, my June calendar brings this wisdom of Chuang Tsu, chapter two to mind: "Every thing can be a 'that'; every thing can be a 'this'. One person cannot see things as another sees them. You can only know things through knowing yourself."
This guy reminds me of the little transbot who's challenging me on Twitter. 'Transwoman' who accuses me of doing the work and warns me this is my 'last chance' to 'get on the right side of history' as though someone died and made *him* TransGod's avenging angel. There's another one, it *might* be a woman, *might* be a bot, who fancies herself an 'anti-MRA' warrior, but thinks I'm a right-wing goon and Nazi because I don't agree with her on trans issues, so I'm leaning more toward man-masquerading-as-woman. Yesterday, I told her I found an MRA for her to take down - a TG woman leading a men's rights group.
I've concluded awhile back that if I get banned from Twitter, I'm good with that.
Jared sounds like the same brainless 'TW' idiot I'm dealing with on Twitter. BTW, Steve, it's not just all humans that are sexually dimorphic; *all hominids* are. We have zero evidence any other hominid 'struggles' with these issues. It's possible that some TGs really do have something weird going on in the brain besides or apart from mental illness; we don't know. There may be some truly genuine GDs. I suspect so anyway. But, last week on the recommendation of either one of your commenters or Glenn Loury's, I watched the YouTube podcast on autogynephilia hosted by four, I'll have say, extremely convincing transmen. I wouldn't have known they were trans if they hadn't admitted it. One was a little femmy-sounding and apparently gets crap sometimes for allegedly being homosexual. Which brings up an interesting question of whether at least some of transmen (probably not so much TWs) get hassled and harassed due to homophobia rather than transphobia.
It was interesting how all these not-over-the-top dudes had more sympathy for women wanting men out of their prisons and bathrooms than many TWs have. It's becoming quite clear to me that there are a helluva lot of sexual fetishists in this movement, primarily the ones trying to gaslight lesbians into fucking them. But I've said before and I'll say it again: When certain men push *this hard* for 'rights' it almost certainly have a sexual element to it. Because horny guys (#AllHornyGuys) will say and do whatever they have to to get women to have sex with them. They're *famous* for this.
According to what I've been reading, these men tend to go trans in middle age. There are 'AGP widows' whose husbands have 'gone girl' and it puts a strain on their marriage, if it even lasts. I'd classify it as something related: A male mid-life crisis. A newer variant of the old trope of the guy who dumps his wife, buys a sportscar and pursues women half his age.
These trans-nuts, whether they're trans supporters or witless acolytes like Jared and the Twitkiddies I'm talking to, are our equivalent of Trump's-stolen-election-level delusional. They are so invested in a particular belief that they will *never* admit they're wrong. Because it's so intricately integrated with their self-image, and there is nothing, *nothing* humans won't do to protect the most valuable thing they have. The remaining Trumpers today would rather sell out their families *and their country's national security* to their self-image, because the truth of what dupes they are is too painful to contemplate. As it is with the trans cult: Realizing how unscientific they are, how stupid they look to others, and what 'useful idiots' for Da Patriarchy so many feminists have become would be simply intolerable to admit to themselves. It could destroy them.
And the desperate need to preserve one's self-image *does* kill. We saw so many pandemic deniers dying in the hospital, muttering to the end "It's not COVID, it's just a really bad cold," just before it killed them.
“there's no reason why a male can't wear a dress or makeup if he wants to.”
I can think of a reason.
That man lives in a world and a country where some are going to be aroused to violence at the sight of his impersonation and attack him in response to their disgust.
We could argue until the sun dies that this shouldn’t happen, just as we can argue that men in women’s prisons shouldn’t rape women or that people with guns shouldn’t kill strangers. What a wonderful world it would be if people didn’t do violent things.
And yes we should work toward that world. No question.
But that isn’t how the world is.
So if a man puts on a dress and makeup and gets his nose broken and teeth knocked out, we can wring our hands at the awfulness of the violence but we also need to note that the man in dress and makeup knew he was, in a real sense, summoning his attack.
But. When I factor in that the feminine projection was not an identity, as is so tiresomely claimed, but only to get some special attention, I really can’t bring myself to care very much. This is the part of "trans" that does not get enough notice: "gender identity" is not something inside them that people let out to liberate their "true selves," it is something they adopt to create pretexts to talk about themselves.
Because people who need so much special attention annoy me, and annoy most of us.
"So if a man puts on a dress and makeup and gets his nose broken and teeth knocked out, we can wring our hands at the awfulness of the violence but we also need to note that the man in dress and makeup knew he was, in a real sense, summoning his attack."
I extremely hesitantly agree with this. But while yes, you're right, our hypothetical crossdresser knew he was putting himself in danger, we could make the same case for a man who was even slightly openly gay 30 years ago (or even today in some places). Or a black man who got stuck near a sundown town 60 years ago. Or even a woman walking home at night
The solution to the world's ills is not to ask women and minorities and people who are a little different to stay at home so that evil people aren't able to do evil things.
This is why I support hate crime laws despite their obvious problems. It's not enough to say, "well, that person committed assault, so let's just punish the assault." Motivation matters. And if the motivation is, "I don't like you because you're different to me in some way," I think society needs to send a clear message that that attitude is also criminal.
Nobody has to like seeing a man in a dress or a black man in their neighbourhood or two men kissing. But people who feel that way can't be allowed to set the tone for the whole of society.
"Steve, I preceded with all that hesitation about how it should not be so, and then I wrapped it up with “summoned.”"
Yeah, I noted all that. And as I said, I hesitantly agree that this qualifies as a reason for a man not to put on a dress and makeup. Which I think was your point. I just also wanted to point out why I think it's a bad reason.
Yes, being black and gay are inborn. But come on, there's no need for gay people to shove it in our faces. Or for black people to not just hang out with their own. Or for women to dress provocatively.
That's the kind of argument some people make. And besides, some would argue that being gender non-conforming is inborn too.
While we probably disagree on percentages, we definitely agree that some people are shocking simply for the sake of it. Or to garner attention (I think a great many in the Q+ community fall into this category). I'm just very reluctant to paint too much of gender non-conformity with that brush.
I truly think gender non conformity is good thing. Even if we have to accept a few attention seekers along with it.
The only "trans" people I have ever known who didn't yap about themselves all day long were the ones who actually were transgender, not the cultists. EVERYTHING to do with the "trans" cult seems to be about attention.
And, for the record, I spent my entire time in gay politics saying that we should stop "shoving it in [others'] faces." Because our goal all along should have been that being gay is unremarkable, undefining, and private. Instead, we had (and still have) those grotesque parades where people act out S&M fantasies on parade floats. And there are still a lot of gays for whom the purpose of life is to make sure strangers know what they think about when they masturbate.
For my counseling assimilation, I was called self-hating, suffering from "internalized homophobia." Even while I was as out as could be at work (except I didn't wear a cock ring or grow any "facial hair statements").
But back to that summoning thing. If you were to go to a KKK meeting and you got beaten up, could you honestly claim that it wasn't expected?
OK, I am prejudiced, mine is the attitude of one who spent a long time trying to get attention and suddenly outgrew it, and we tend to dislike most in others that which we dislike most in ourselves.
But whether or not there is anything good about gender nonconformity, there are going to be people who don't like it, nd at the extremes of that dislike there is going to be violence. I'm not that extreme but I can easily see making a very loud scene.
"But back to that summoning thing. If you were to go to a KKK meeting and you got beaten up, could you honestly claim that it wasn't expected?"
No, again, I agree. I'd know full well I was putting myself in danger if I went to a KKK rally. And asserting my right to be there wouldn't make the beating any less likely. But if a significant portion of society was a KKK rally, and my only option to live my life without risk of getting beaten was to hide my skin, should I do it? Would this be acceptable? Would you blame me for refusing or society for being that way?
I understand where you're coming from with assimilation. As we've discussed before, back in the day, many gay people defined themselves by their "otherness," by their status as outsiders. They were shocking and crass simply for the thrill of being so. I think the same is true of the Q+ community today. We are united in our disdain for these people.
But true assimilation also requires adaptation from society. If I'm allowed to kiss my girlfriend or wife in the street without fear of violence, you should be able to kiss your boyfriend or husband. That's not rubbing anything in anybody's face, that's a normal expression of affection that we should *all* be able to take for granted. And it's a long way from the public fetish parties that have sadly come to embody "Pride."
The point I was trying to make is that many of the "don't rub it in my face" people are talking about these ordinary gestures. They're basically saying, "I'll tolerate your existence as long as you completely hide who you are."
I like how we converge on agreement. The more we converse, the more we agree. The same public displays of affection that heterosexual people use should be unremarkable (they would not be in Alabama), but when it comes to going out in public in bondage gear, I shift more toward "what happens, happens."
As I have probably mentioned before, after my solitary march I took part in, 1976, I had signed up for reminders, and every year I got one encouraging me to show up as lewdly-dressed and offensive as I could manage, because ("titter titter") the cops can'tt arrest us all. And that was 45 years ago.
Yes I’ve always found it incredibly selfish to stand in the middle of the hypothetical room shouting ‘me! I’m important! What I want is all that matters!’ So annoying.
Well, argh, as awkward as it is (since we agree overall), I need to push back just a bit here.
There actually are rare genetic anomalies to support that specific assertion, in absolute terms. Just as clownfish changing sex is a real thing. The issue is that these are irrelevant to the issue under discussion, rather than that they don't exist.
That side of the argument selectively uses some real anomolies and disorders and genetic malfunctions combined with bad logic to try to support false conclusions. But we need to provide context and show the problems in their logic rather than deny the existence of such anomalies, like XY females with androgen insensivity.
"Cuz then I’d argue why is sexual predation possible in our prison system? Isn’t this something we could largely avoid?"
Apparently not. We would need three shifts of guards for each prisoner. This isn't achievable, nor is it practical.
It would be much easier to keep prisoners in facilities that correspond to their biological sex. Problem solved.
"Starting with decriminalizing all drugs?"
Oh, good idea. While, yes, that would relieve prison congestion somewhat, not everyone is in prison on drug offenses. And yes marijuana should be decriminalized and we are moving rapidly in that direction. But I don't see trading prison congestion for a national addiction crisis to be so great an idea.
"Apparently not. We would need three shifts of guards for each prisoner. This isn't achievable, nor is it practical."
Yeah, just another layer of Jared's idiocy that I don't see any point going to deeply into. This is like asking if we could do away with murder or violence in general. No. We can't. But we can do everything possible to minimise it. And the easiest lever to pull, given that sexual predation and violence have been male majority crimes for the entirety of human existence, is to ensure that women have privacy from men in certain circumstances. However those men "identify"
Pardon me, 𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 national addiction crisis. We already have nicotine, alcohol, games, benzodiazepines, and illegal narcotics. Legal heroin and crack cocaine would have half the nation hooked.
Heroin is 𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑒. If your life is plagued by anxiety and emotional distress, as almosts every life is, heroin is hours free of that pain. If your pain level is high enough, you will immediately want to do heroin again and again, and in a few months you will be addicted.
Steve QJ:
“There are species of lizard that can grow back their limbs if they're cut off. Shall I cut off your arm and see if it works on you?”
My wife just asked me why I was laughing so loud at my phone. I wish the whole debate were this funny, but it is not.
The truly astonishing thing is that Jared seems like a relatively well educated person who fell into what appears to be a cult. And this cult is swallowing up our scientific, educational and cultural institutions at breakneck speed. And politics at the highest level--President Biden slobbering all over the debasing parody of womanhood that is Dylan Mulvaney. Good God!!
I think that one of the most urgent social developments that needs to happen ASAP is that LGB needs to split from TQ now!!! The straight world doesn’t have the cred--that’s one reason why right wing “allies” are actually counterproductive. The TQs of this world glom onto the LGBs for an excellent reason. And it is not doing the LGBs ANY good.
"The TQs of this world glom onto the LGBs for an excellent reason. And it is not doing the LGBs ANY good."
Your ability to predict what I'm writing about us getting spooky😅 But yes, many LGB people are seeing how much damage the Q+ is doing. I think the T is kind of caught in the middle.
https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/gay-rights-and-the-limits-of-liberalism?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Andrew Sulivan speaks for me on the liberal consensus. FYI Steve
https://thespectator.com/topic/pride-lost-public-lgbt-trans-children/
This article preempted the one I wanted to write.
I don’t “predict” what you are writing; I think that our minds just work the same. I consider that an honor.
Are you familiar with the British nonprofit LGB? I read they have been labeled by some government or “watchdog” agency as a “hate group.” Is this true? If so, it’s revolting.
I look forward to your thoughts on this, Steve. And no, I can’t predict what they will be.🤣🤣🤣
It’s “LGB Alliance.” Apologies.
I LOL'd quite a few times, reading this.
Steve can ask Jared next time if he can eat his own shit to get back the nutrients he missed from the first pass-through like our distant cousins the guinea pigs ;)
Mulvaney doesn't appear to be doing too well. He looks anorexic and his little-girl shtick is getting old fast.
About time!!!
Thank you Steve, for continuing to speak up for women. I swear to you, this crap is so in your face 24/7 it makes you want to move to the middle of the country and draw a ring around your land and tell the culture to take a flying leap.
And for Jared: I will not embrace delusion to make you feel better. I will not find obscure, non-human (or even human) examples at the extreme fringe to force a lie onto society.
And I have never cared how adults present or who they love or how they dress. Free choice baby. But to demand that I say something is true when it’s not is to ask me to live a lie. My integrity is what I have. You can’t have it.
"But to demand that I say something is true when it’s not is to ask me to live a lie. My integrity is what I have. You can’t have it."
👏🏾
What is truly funny in this exchange is Jared referring to evolution by natural selection and then saying of course there are more than two sexes. OK, great, what are they? How, exactly, does evolution by natural selection work if there are more than two kinds of gametes? What are the third, fourth, and fifth kind of gametes called? The bit about intersex people is also, as you point out, kind of a smokescreen, because saying something is kind of like A in some respects and kind of like B in some respects does not imply there's a third category C. The existence of intersex people is actually an argument <for> the sex binary, because if there was a third or fourth or fifth kind of gamete they'd show characteristics of those other imaginary sexes- but they don't, of course, they only show characteristics of male or female.
It's like, man, did you people not take high school biology? Or 6th grade sex ed?
I find it so exhausting, listening to the arguments of angry and sanctimonious people. I thank you for your cogency and patience. Even if they will never actually hear you, we will. Thank you for that.
Oh, Steve. You were only *assigned* two arms at birth by a very presumptuous doctor!!! Only you know in your heart how many arms you really have, or are meant to have, in order to be fully embodied as your true self.
Thank you Marie. My octopus identity has finally been seen. 💪💪💪💪💪💪💪💪
Sadly, i think “trans-speciesism” is an actual thing… ok not an ACTUAL thing but an actual brain-addled internet thing. https://www.vice.com/en/article/yvwknv/what-does-it-mean-to-be-trans-species
Then there are the people who claim they are "gender fluid." What the hell is that? I'll resist the obvious obscene sarcasm. They are telling us that they are not gender dysphoric or conventionally gendered. Still only two sexes, but their gender identity is at best temporary. They at least don't argue that there are more than two sexes or genders.
Imagine a world where people cannot point out that absurdities are absurd. Oh wait!
"I'll resist the obvious obscene sarcasm."
😁 Not sure what it says about either of us that I instantly knew what you meant.
I think all of this is based on a deep, deep confusion about the difference between adherence to gendered stereotypes and biological sex. I often point out that it used to be the trans activists who reminded us that sex and gender are different things. And they were right. But that fact now conflicts with their sex abolitionist aims.
Yes, you did have less patience than usual, but I understand why.
I even laughed at the cheap shot (which I usually do not):
> However, if you think that solution is to "decriminalise all drugs," I think you need to take less drugs.
Smokescreen is the perfect description of the spray of irrelevant arguments that CSJ converts throw out to obscure any discussion, without actually supporting their position. Like clownfish changing sex, as if that had anything whatsoever to do with human gender identity vs biological sex.
I am more and more coming to the conclusion that treating CSJ ideology as a quasi-religion makes the most sense, as many have suggested. After a life changing conversion, the mind is harnessed to fabricate rationales for what the unconscious wants to believe. Unquestioning faith in, and defense of, the ideology become a key part of people's self-concept or identity, so changing it is framed as a deep threat. If they hold a view on any issue which is unorthodox within their circles, they may be slipping into Satan's grasp, or becoming a MAGA extremist.
Jonathan Haidt gives some good examples of the rationalization process in "The Righteous Mind".
"I am more and more coming to the conclusion that treating CSJ ideology as a quasi-religion makes the most sense, as many have suggested."
Yep, I actually think religion is too generous. Cult is the word.
"Assigned" has been adopted in so many places so quickly that it's terrifying. This is part of why it's become a legislative issue. In the face of the success of Critical Gender Theory, using the blunt hammer of the law to push it back is completely understandable, even though it's likely unwise. Law lacks nuance. But these ideas are poison.
""Assigned" has been adopted in so many places so quickly that it's terrifying."
Yep. Truly astonishing. I've spoken to many people who don't understand why the terminology is deliberately misleading. But yes, I think you can trace this back to the moment people were allowed to change the "F" on their birth certificate to an "M" (and vice versa). Writing a lie into law like this was always going to have unintended consequences (case in point I saw recently https://twitter.com/Araweel0Returns/status/1634211273427636224?s=20).
Why it's so awful to change it to trans woman/man I will never understand.
Brilliant as ever, Steve. Bookmarking this, as it contains all the essential cogent arguments against the trans ideology cult, although as clearly demonstrated here, there's little point using them against those who simply don't want to listen.
"it contains all the essential cogent arguments against the trans ideology cult"
Thanks Keith. Yep, this is why I thought the conversation was useful. I very rarely expect to change the mind of the person I'm talking to on trans issues (they'd never admit it even if I did). But other people who are less indoctrinated read them and are persuaded by them. That's my real target audience.
Once LGB wakes up to the harm T is causing them, and demands two sets of letters after divorcing TQIA, things will improve dramatically. The difficulty is the right wing overreaction to T, which really is the only glue holding the alphabet together.
Most of the right wing fervor is directed at T these days, and not LGB. The right lost the war against LGB, and now LGB has more to lose from T ideology than the right wing these days by quite a margin.
This is one reason why Pride is so incoherent these days.
There are many LGB doing just that! #LGBwithoutT, #LGB Alliance, and more. Many LGB have been critical and even speaking to how their own rights are compromised by the more unreasonable demands by 'T'. This is a very real and vocal position within the LGB community, even if many LGBTQIA institutions are against it.
I know a little of LGB Alliance and just looked up #LGBwithout. They are taking truly punishing heat--maybe the worst. You should see Reddit. I have corresponded with a number of Gs and Ls, mostly on Substack, who tell me that they privately are appalled at T activist positions, as are many of their friends, but they are terrified of speaking out.
This is consistent with Jonathan Haidt's observation that the most vituperative and cruel cancellations occur against dissidents "within the ranks." That is because only "within the ranks" cancellation can result in virtually complete social ostracism. Only your former "friends" are capable of that.
So, that is the stage we are in. But with greater numbers, the cancellations become less effective as the dissidents are less isolated.
As you know, I published a conversation with Brynoa. I said that I wouldn't use it to trash her and intended to let readers decide if her claims were fabulous, so I limited my comments with you to stay true to my word. It is becoming difficult to maintain politeness when claims go over the top.
I am an outsider who has not been elected speaker for LGB but I can't help but think that the T becoming the mouth of pride is not something that is helpful to LGB. Add to that the addition of new madeup subgroups to the community that isn't actually a community and you have a clusterfuck.
I certainly agree with the latter of your two paragraphs.
As for Bryona, I wish her the best. But I'm not going to self-censor to spare her or anyone else's feelings, though I endeavor to be civil when expressing my opinion. That this self-censorship is now "expected" among many people in 2023 is a bane of our times. All this crap about "safe spaces" and microaggressions and exaggerated claims of "genocide" and "trauma" and whatnot. Read Haidt's "The Coddling of the American Mind" for why it is so destructive of truth, freedom and humanity itself.
I have read some of Bryona's Substack writings. She is a good and sensitive writer, despite my severe misgivings about her empirical claims. Did you know that she was nearly 70 years old when she transitioned?
I certainly don't expect self-censorship from you or anyone else. I was good with you replying since I was expecting different responses, if any.
Yes. I asked if she thought that the various things she revealed were a factor in her successful transition. I don't think she really did say. Her transition was very different than what it would have been with the small genital tissue of a child. I mentioned that with no response. My voiced concerns that were not held back was my thoughts on transitioning children. I don't buy the, they know what they are as toddlers thing. I don't foresee myself ever thinking that a child should make such a critical decision as genital surgery.
I didn't know she was on substack. The "I have a prostate and vagina" response to my statement that drew her response was a hook that led me to not discourage discussion with the usual "Transphobe!" cry.
Steve you have patience and perseverance beyond my capacity. The truth, in its simplicity, is simply too much for some to comprehend. Lest I lean too philosophical, my June calendar brings this wisdom of Chuang Tsu, chapter two to mind: "Every thing can be a 'that'; every thing can be a 'this'. One person cannot see things as another sees them. You can only know things through knowing yourself."
This guy reminds me of the little transbot who's challenging me on Twitter. 'Transwoman' who accuses me of doing the work and warns me this is my 'last chance' to 'get on the right side of history' as though someone died and made *him* TransGod's avenging angel. There's another one, it *might* be a woman, *might* be a bot, who fancies herself an 'anti-MRA' warrior, but thinks I'm a right-wing goon and Nazi because I don't agree with her on trans issues, so I'm leaning more toward man-masquerading-as-woman. Yesterday, I told her I found an MRA for her to take down - a TG woman leading a men's rights group.
I've concluded awhile back that if I get banned from Twitter, I'm good with that.
Jared sounds like the same brainless 'TW' idiot I'm dealing with on Twitter. BTW, Steve, it's not just all humans that are sexually dimorphic; *all hominids* are. We have zero evidence any other hominid 'struggles' with these issues. It's possible that some TGs really do have something weird going on in the brain besides or apart from mental illness; we don't know. There may be some truly genuine GDs. I suspect so anyway. But, last week on the recommendation of either one of your commenters or Glenn Loury's, I watched the YouTube podcast on autogynephilia hosted by four, I'll have say, extremely convincing transmen. I wouldn't have known they were trans if they hadn't admitted it. One was a little femmy-sounding and apparently gets crap sometimes for allegedly being homosexual. Which brings up an interesting question of whether at least some of transmen (probably not so much TWs) get hassled and harassed due to homophobia rather than transphobia.
It was interesting how all these not-over-the-top dudes had more sympathy for women wanting men out of their prisons and bathrooms than many TWs have. It's becoming quite clear to me that there are a helluva lot of sexual fetishists in this movement, primarily the ones trying to gaslight lesbians into fucking them. But I've said before and I'll say it again: When certain men push *this hard* for 'rights' it almost certainly have a sexual element to it. Because horny guys (#AllHornyGuys) will say and do whatever they have to to get women to have sex with them. They're *famous* for this.
According to what I've been reading, these men tend to go trans in middle age. There are 'AGP widows' whose husbands have 'gone girl' and it puts a strain on their marriage, if it even lasts. I'd classify it as something related: A male mid-life crisis. A newer variant of the old trope of the guy who dumps his wife, buys a sportscar and pursues women half his age.
These trans-nuts, whether they're trans supporters or witless acolytes like Jared and the Twitkiddies I'm talking to, are our equivalent of Trump's-stolen-election-level delusional. They are so invested in a particular belief that they will *never* admit they're wrong. Because it's so intricately integrated with their self-image, and there is nothing, *nothing* humans won't do to protect the most valuable thing they have. The remaining Trumpers today would rather sell out their families *and their country's national security* to their self-image, because the truth of what dupes they are is too painful to contemplate. As it is with the trans cult: Realizing how unscientific they are, how stupid they look to others, and what 'useful idiots' for Da Patriarchy so many feminists have become would be simply intolerable to admit to themselves. It could destroy them.
And the desperate need to preserve one's self-image *does* kill. We saw so many pandemic deniers dying in the hospital, muttering to the end "It's not COVID, it's just a really bad cold," just before it killed them.
“there's no reason why a male can't wear a dress or makeup if he wants to.”
I can think of a reason.
That man lives in a world and a country where some are going to be aroused to violence at the sight of his impersonation and attack him in response to their disgust.
We could argue until the sun dies that this shouldn’t happen, just as we can argue that men in women’s prisons shouldn’t rape women or that people with guns shouldn’t kill strangers. What a wonderful world it would be if people didn’t do violent things.
And yes we should work toward that world. No question.
But that isn’t how the world is.
So if a man puts on a dress and makeup and gets his nose broken and teeth knocked out, we can wring our hands at the awfulness of the violence but we also need to note that the man in dress and makeup knew he was, in a real sense, summoning his attack.
But. When I factor in that the feminine projection was not an identity, as is so tiresomely claimed, but only to get some special attention, I really can’t bring myself to care very much. This is the part of "trans" that does not get enough notice: "gender identity" is not something inside them that people let out to liberate their "true selves," it is something they adopt to create pretexts to talk about themselves.
Because people who need so much special attention annoy me, and annoy most of us.
"So if a man puts on a dress and makeup and gets his nose broken and teeth knocked out, we can wring our hands at the awfulness of the violence but we also need to note that the man in dress and makeup knew he was, in a real sense, summoning his attack."
I extremely hesitantly agree with this. But while yes, you're right, our hypothetical crossdresser knew he was putting himself in danger, we could make the same case for a man who was even slightly openly gay 30 years ago (or even today in some places). Or a black man who got stuck near a sundown town 60 years ago. Or even a woman walking home at night
The solution to the world's ills is not to ask women and minorities and people who are a little different to stay at home so that evil people aren't able to do evil things.
This is why I support hate crime laws despite their obvious problems. It's not enough to say, "well, that person committed assault, so let's just punish the assault." Motivation matters. And if the motivation is, "I don't like you because you're different to me in some way," I think society needs to send a clear message that that attitude is also criminal.
Nobody has to like seeing a man in a dress or a black man in their neighbourhood or two men kissing. But people who feel that way can't be allowed to set the tone for the whole of society.
Steve, I preceded with all that hesitation about how it should not be so, and then I wrapped it up with “summoned.”
Being black, being gay, these are inborn.
Being “trans” but for that almost invisible sliver of the cult, is elective.
Some find it to be thrillingly…. Illicit to feel marginalized. We’ve discussed this before.
I didn’t sneer that “he was askin’ for it.”
Nor did I say I was happy he got his face smashed. I’ve had friends who were beaten. I had one whose boyfriend was murdered. Both for being gay.
Being.
Not putting on fur attention.
Edit: chilled, here. I’ve been thinking of Robert Johnson all day and you just alluded to Crissroads.
"Steve, I preceded with all that hesitation about how it should not be so, and then I wrapped it up with “summoned.”"
Yeah, I noted all that. And as I said, I hesitantly agree that this qualifies as a reason for a man not to put on a dress and makeup. Which I think was your point. I just also wanted to point out why I think it's a bad reason.
Yes, being black and gay are inborn. But come on, there's no need for gay people to shove it in our faces. Or for black people to not just hang out with their own. Or for women to dress provocatively.
That's the kind of argument some people make. And besides, some would argue that being gender non-conforming is inborn too.
While we probably disagree on percentages, we definitely agree that some people are shocking simply for the sake of it. Or to garner attention (I think a great many in the Q+ community fall into this category). I'm just very reluctant to paint too much of gender non-conformity with that brush.
I truly think gender non conformity is good thing. Even if we have to accept a few attention seekers along with it.
Of only it was a "few."
The only "trans" people I have ever known who didn't yap about themselves all day long were the ones who actually were transgender, not the cultists. EVERYTHING to do with the "trans" cult seems to be about attention.
And, for the record, I spent my entire time in gay politics saying that we should stop "shoving it in [others'] faces." Because our goal all along should have been that being gay is unremarkable, undefining, and private. Instead, we had (and still have) those grotesque parades where people act out S&M fantasies on parade floats. And there are still a lot of gays for whom the purpose of life is to make sure strangers know what they think about when they masturbate.
For my counseling assimilation, I was called self-hating, suffering from "internalized homophobia." Even while I was as out as could be at work (except I didn't wear a cock ring or grow any "facial hair statements").
But back to that summoning thing. If you were to go to a KKK meeting and you got beaten up, could you honestly claim that it wasn't expected?
OK, I am prejudiced, mine is the attitude of one who spent a long time trying to get attention and suddenly outgrew it, and we tend to dislike most in others that which we dislike most in ourselves.
But whether or not there is anything good about gender nonconformity, there are going to be people who don't like it, nd at the extremes of that dislike there is going to be violence. I'm not that extreme but I can easily see making a very loud scene.
"But back to that summoning thing. If you were to go to a KKK meeting and you got beaten up, could you honestly claim that it wasn't expected?"
No, again, I agree. I'd know full well I was putting myself in danger if I went to a KKK rally. And asserting my right to be there wouldn't make the beating any less likely. But if a significant portion of society was a KKK rally, and my only option to live my life without risk of getting beaten was to hide my skin, should I do it? Would this be acceptable? Would you blame me for refusing or society for being that way?
I understand where you're coming from with assimilation. As we've discussed before, back in the day, many gay people defined themselves by their "otherness," by their status as outsiders. They were shocking and crass simply for the thrill of being so. I think the same is true of the Q+ community today. We are united in our disdain for these people.
But true assimilation also requires adaptation from society. If I'm allowed to kiss my girlfriend or wife in the street without fear of violence, you should be able to kiss your boyfriend or husband. That's not rubbing anything in anybody's face, that's a normal expression of affection that we should *all* be able to take for granted. And it's a long way from the public fetish parties that have sadly come to embody "Pride."
The point I was trying to make is that many of the "don't rub it in my face" people are talking about these ordinary gestures. They're basically saying, "I'll tolerate your existence as long as you completely hide who you are."
I like how we converge on agreement. The more we converse, the more we agree. The same public displays of affection that heterosexual people use should be unremarkable (they would not be in Alabama), but when it comes to going out in public in bondage gear, I shift more toward "what happens, happens."
As I have probably mentioned before, after my solitary march I took part in, 1976, I had signed up for reminders, and every year I got one encouraging me to show up as lewdly-dressed and offensive as I could manage, because ("titter titter") the cops can'tt arrest us all. And that was 45 years ago.
Yes I’ve always found it incredibly selfish to stand in the middle of the hypothetical room shouting ‘me! I’m important! What I want is all that matters!’ So annoying.
I had to stop reading at “XY is not necessarily male.” Jared is an idiot.
Well, argh, as awkward as it is (since we agree overall), I need to push back just a bit here.
There actually are rare genetic anomalies to support that specific assertion, in absolute terms. Just as clownfish changing sex is a real thing. The issue is that these are irrelevant to the issue under discussion, rather than that they don't exist.
That side of the argument selectively uses some real anomolies and disorders and genetic malfunctions combined with bad logic to try to support false conclusions. But we need to provide context and show the problems in their logic rather than deny the existence of such anomalies, like XY females with androgen insensivity.
If course AIS is a developmental disorder. AIS “females” cannot bear children.
Is it even worth it to engage with flat-earthers?
"Cuz then I’d argue why is sexual predation possible in our prison system? Isn’t this something we could largely avoid?"
Apparently not. We would need three shifts of guards for each prisoner. This isn't achievable, nor is it practical.
It would be much easier to keep prisoners in facilities that correspond to their biological sex. Problem solved.
"Starting with decriminalizing all drugs?"
Oh, good idea. While, yes, that would relieve prison congestion somewhat, not everyone is in prison on drug offenses. And yes marijuana should be decriminalized and we are moving rapidly in that direction. But I don't see trading prison congestion for a national addiction crisis to be so great an idea.
"Apparently not. We would need three shifts of guards for each prisoner. This isn't achievable, nor is it practical."
Yeah, just another layer of Jared's idiocy that I don't see any point going to deeply into. This is like asking if we could do away with murder or violence in general. No. We can't. But we can do everything possible to minimise it. And the easiest lever to pull, given that sexual predation and violence have been male majority crimes for the entirety of human existence, is to ensure that women have privacy from men in certain circumstances. However those men "identify"
Pardon me, 𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 national addiction crisis. We already have nicotine, alcohol, games, benzodiazepines, and illegal narcotics. Legal heroin and crack cocaine would have half the nation hooked.
Heroin is 𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑒. If your life is plagued by anxiety and emotional distress, as almosts every life is, heroin is hours free of that pain. If your pain level is high enough, you will immediately want to do heroin again and again, and in a few months you will be addicted.