"She wants to be seen by others with whom she wants to be associated as having the correct empathy. Her mimetic desire for belonging precludes true empathy. In other words, Julia wants social [credit]"
Really? What makes you think that? Don't get me wrong, I've spoken to lots of people for whom this is true, but Julia strikes me as sincer…
"She wants to be seen by others with whom she wants to be associated as having the correct empathy. Her mimetic desire for belonging precludes true empathy. In other words, Julia wants social [credit]"
Really? What makes you think that? Don't get me wrong, I've spoken to lots of people for whom this is true, but Julia strikes me as sincere. Maybe it's also because I've spoken to her before so I've built up a little picture of who she is in my mind. But is there anything specific about what she said that makes you see her as insincere?
Well, obviously I cannot know for absolute certain because I do not live in her head and only have the benefit of what she wrote. But I say this because the notion of "trans suicidal ideation" or "oppression" from not being able to play on the sports team of choice, like "systemic racism," has become a trope that is trotted out almost as if on cue. Nobody can operationalize them. They are abstract, dogmatic concepts of suffering.
Where was all this trans suffering 15 or 20 years ago, when none of these trans "rights" were recognized? It should have been worse. Julia points to no person in particular as a target of her "empathy" She studiously ignores the rank unfairness to biological female athletes without a hint of the cognitive pain that such dilemmas should arouse in truly empathetic people.
This is not to say that there is not trans suffering, or pervasive individual instances of racism. There clearly are. But the real trans suffering, like the real racism, do not come from where the Progressive quasi-religious and conspiratorial mindset thinks they come from. Many young trans people (esp AFAB) suffer from low self-esteem and a host of other aliments like autism and depression. Transition is the new panacea. Similarly, racism in private hiring decisions is absolutely pervasive, but there is nothing "systemic" about it---it is instead the result of millions of individual and unconnected decisions.
Because the Progressive dogmas are not empirically grounded, they preclude real solutions. The young purported "trans" teen's real mental issues never get treated and, in like manner the nonexistent racist "systems" are blamed rather than focusing on the hearts and minds of the individual private employer.
To my mind, this is the point of your article--fictional thinking results in fictional "solutions,"
"Well, obviously I cannot know for absolute certain because I do not live in her head"
Oh yeah, I wasn't trying to pin you down to some ironclad standard of evidence, I just didn't spot anything that seemed insincere and thought you might have. Julia's motivations, for me, are summed up by her last reply.
I've spoken to several otherwise smart, reasonable, nuanced people who seem equally incapable of thinking clearly about this issue. And very single one of them, literally without exception, "speaks on behalf" of a trans child or trans friend.
Note Julia's line (and the title of this piece); "I don't like the absolute line of dividing by sex assigned at birth." Any clear-thinking person understands that what one "likes" on this or any other issue is irrelevant. But for a lot of people, their discomfort with the truth is enough reason to reject it.
They've swallowed the incredibly oft-repeated lie that trans people who aren't affirmed in every single way will kill themselves. And refuse to differentiate between the few trans people they know and the perverts and fetishists who are using real trans people as a Trojan horse.
Again, I think there are many, many people who fit your description. But I think people like Julia are more victims of a lack of thought and a bias built on the belief that their dogma is necessary to protect people they care about.
"But I think people like Julia are more victims of a lack of thought and a bias built on the belief that their dogma is necessary to protect people they care about."
I don't think my point is far from this. I'm a big believer in Rene Girard's mimetic theory. People "learn" who the objects of their empathy "ought" to be through social cues. This is the "bias" you refer to.
Julia is not coming at this issue from a vacuum. In a profound sense, moral beliefs are functionally indistinguishable from fashion. Before 2015 and the legalization of gay marriage---that is, before people in Progressive circles were "trained" to have empathy for trans people despite the harms to others--my guess is that if Julia were confronted with the same moral dilemma (transwomen athletes in women's sports), she likely would have had a much more nuanced response. But now that her dominant group has labeled that nuanced response as "bigotry," it changes the entire psychological dynamic.
I have seen the identical mimetic process work its magic on Progressive friends of mine I have known for decades, who suddenly had profound "concerns" they never knew they had. (Indeed, I might be "projecting" a bit with Julia.) I do not doubt Julia's sincerity within this framework, but I also question if true empathy is possible without independence of thought and a grounding in reality. It takes a certain personality type to go against the grain.
I use the term AFAB out of lazy convenience. Sadly the words “woman” and “girl” now need clarification because of uncertainty about your audience. Maybe here it was a mistake, but in other forums where I write like Medium it has become necessary. My apologies.
You don't owe me an apology. I just try to make sure I never use the language of the ideologues because I don't want to give it any credence. Then again, I was kicked off Medium for allegedly 'transphobic' views, so you are more strategic than I.
It's unconscious. She believes 100% in what she says, but I'll bet on some deeper level she's uncomfortable with it. I think Miguelitro nailed her, but she doesn't yet realize it herself, and may never, because it will be too big a blow to her self-image to realize how wrong she was about something, how the right-wingers were right, and how un-feminist and anti-progressive her views actually are.
"She wants to be seen by others with whom she wants to be associated as having the correct empathy. Her mimetic desire for belonging precludes true empathy. In other words, Julia wants social [credit]"
Really? What makes you think that? Don't get me wrong, I've spoken to lots of people for whom this is true, but Julia strikes me as sincere. Maybe it's also because I've spoken to her before so I've built up a little picture of who she is in my mind. But is there anything specific about what she said that makes you see her as insincere?
Well, obviously I cannot know for absolute certain because I do not live in her head and only have the benefit of what she wrote. But I say this because the notion of "trans suicidal ideation" or "oppression" from not being able to play on the sports team of choice, like "systemic racism," has become a trope that is trotted out almost as if on cue. Nobody can operationalize them. They are abstract, dogmatic concepts of suffering.
Where was all this trans suffering 15 or 20 years ago, when none of these trans "rights" were recognized? It should have been worse. Julia points to no person in particular as a target of her "empathy" She studiously ignores the rank unfairness to biological female athletes without a hint of the cognitive pain that such dilemmas should arouse in truly empathetic people.
This is not to say that there is not trans suffering, or pervasive individual instances of racism. There clearly are. But the real trans suffering, like the real racism, do not come from where the Progressive quasi-religious and conspiratorial mindset thinks they come from. Many young trans people (esp AFAB) suffer from low self-esteem and a host of other aliments like autism and depression. Transition is the new panacea. Similarly, racism in private hiring decisions is absolutely pervasive, but there is nothing "systemic" about it---it is instead the result of millions of individual and unconnected decisions.
Because the Progressive dogmas are not empirically grounded, they preclude real solutions. The young purported "trans" teen's real mental issues never get treated and, in like manner the nonexistent racist "systems" are blamed rather than focusing on the hearts and minds of the individual private employer.
To my mind, this is the point of your article--fictional thinking results in fictional "solutions,"
"Well, obviously I cannot know for absolute certain because I do not live in her head"
Oh yeah, I wasn't trying to pin you down to some ironclad standard of evidence, I just didn't spot anything that seemed insincere and thought you might have. Julia's motivations, for me, are summed up by her last reply.
I've spoken to several otherwise smart, reasonable, nuanced people who seem equally incapable of thinking clearly about this issue. And very single one of them, literally without exception, "speaks on behalf" of a trans child or trans friend.
Note Julia's line (and the title of this piece); "I don't like the absolute line of dividing by sex assigned at birth." Any clear-thinking person understands that what one "likes" on this or any other issue is irrelevant. But for a lot of people, their discomfort with the truth is enough reason to reject it.
They've swallowed the incredibly oft-repeated lie that trans people who aren't affirmed in every single way will kill themselves. And refuse to differentiate between the few trans people they know and the perverts and fetishists who are using real trans people as a Trojan horse.
Again, I think there are many, many people who fit your description. But I think people like Julia are more victims of a lack of thought and a bias built on the belief that their dogma is necessary to protect people they care about.
"But I think people like Julia are more victims of a lack of thought and a bias built on the belief that their dogma is necessary to protect people they care about."
I don't think my point is far from this. I'm a big believer in Rene Girard's mimetic theory. People "learn" who the objects of their empathy "ought" to be through social cues. This is the "bias" you refer to.
Julia is not coming at this issue from a vacuum. In a profound sense, moral beliefs are functionally indistinguishable from fashion. Before 2015 and the legalization of gay marriage---that is, before people in Progressive circles were "trained" to have empathy for trans people despite the harms to others--my guess is that if Julia were confronted with the same moral dilemma (transwomen athletes in women's sports), she likely would have had a much more nuanced response. But now that her dominant group has labeled that nuanced response as "bigotry," it changes the entire psychological dynamic.
I have seen the identical mimetic process work its magic on Progressive friends of mine I have known for decades, who suddenly had profound "concerns" they never knew they had. (Indeed, I might be "projecting" a bit with Julia.) I do not doubt Julia's sincerity within this framework, but I also question if true empathy is possible without independence of thought and a grounding in reality. It takes a certain personality type to go against the grain.
I agree with you on this. She doesn't strike me as truly empathetic either.
On another note, curious why you would use the term 'AFAB'?
I use the term AFAB out of lazy convenience. Sadly the words “woman” and “girl” now need clarification because of uncertainty about your audience. Maybe here it was a mistake, but in other forums where I write like Medium it has become necessary. My apologies.
You don't owe me an apology. I just try to make sure I never use the language of the ideologues because I don't want to give it any credence. Then again, I was kicked off Medium for allegedly 'transphobic' views, so you are more strategic than I.
It's unconscious. She believes 100% in what she says, but I'll bet on some deeper level she's uncomfortable with it. I think Miguelitro nailed her, but she doesn't yet realize it herself, and may never, because it will be too big a blow to her self-image to realize how wrong she was about something, how the right-wingers were right, and how un-feminist and anti-progressive her views actually are.
Her sincerity of advocating for Those People hasn't changed, just which of Those People she's supporting.