"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.
"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.
"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.