While I fully understand your irritation at Jared, keeping your first rule is probably still a good idea. It doesn't help to get down into the mud with certain folks, slinging insults. Take the high road whenever you can; it's one of your strengths that you can make good cases which don't need the mud slinging; let others who cannot de…
While I fully understand your irritation at Jared, keeping your first rule is probably still a good idea. It doesn't help to get down into the mud with certain folks, slinging insults. Take the high road whenever you can; it's one of your strengths that you can make good cases which don't need the mud slinging; let others who cannot demonstrate the weakness of their position. (This is a constant struggle for me as well, I'm not looking down!).
I actually do think that Jared is trying to protect what he thinks is an exceedingly vulnerable population. He is not seeking to cause harm. So he's not a morally terrible person. However, no matter how noble the cause in his mind, he is using poor reasoning and evidence. For example pretending that the issue is seeing generic genitals without regard to sex - that was pretty blatant rationalization, which in a less fraught conversation he likely would not want to stand behind.
In Johnathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind" (which btw has my highest recommendation!!), he writes at one point about how and why people try to find supposedly 'rational' arguments to support a pre-determined "moral" outcome, and how that has been researched. He gives an example used by researchers, a story about a brother and sister (I decided to let readers follow it for themselves, description deleted). It's really interesting seeing the kinds of desperate mental acrobatics that people go through to "justify" with reasoning, a conclusion which was not reached by reasoning and which is resistant to being dislodged by reasoning. They will say nonsense things which under other circumstances they would see as nonsense, but convince themselves it makes sense somehow at the moment. It's very hard to get them to see something they don't want to see.
Nevertheless, we try - sometimes more for other people who might observe the interaction and still be less attached to a conclusion, than for the conversant. Or sometimes to plant a seed which will later blossom (very rarely immediately).
In that spirit, I would like to calmly ask Jared how one can reliably tell the difference between somebody who is genuinely trans, and somebody who merely claims to be trans for some other reason or purpose. The other purpose could be getting access to women's spaces for sexual kicks, to women's sports for success purposes, to women's prisons to seek an easier prison time with more potentials for sex, or anything else.
Is there any real world objective test which can be done - lab tests, brain scans, reaction times, etc? Is there any psychological test which can distinguish fraudulent from legitimate trans identification? Or is trans identity entirely subjective with no possibility of real world validation?
If he brings up brain scans, there is some interesting discussion to be had about the actual state of the research, which will likely not please him. (As a short summary, some trans identified folks do show statistical differences from their biological sex, but also from the other biological sex; researchers can distinguish separate clusters for cis males, cis females, trans males, trans females. The do not match the other sex tho. And other trans folks may not even pass this test, being closer to their biological sex cluster).
These are simple questions; don't let him divert to an easier topic, don't follow him onto another thread until he can answer this.
If there was a reliable means of testing, I think a lot of the problems would go away. Those who had objective evidence of trans status could be given some of those rights, those who did not would not get the rights. Real trans folks would be supported, imposters would be punished and removed from women's spaces (and would seldom try).
If he admits that there is no such thing now, ask if he would support an effort to develop such a scientifically valid test, so that we could meet the needs of trans folk to do their thing, and women to be able to have their spaces. A win/win which would greatly ease things for trans folks by respecting women's spaces too. For example, we could try to develop some procedure using brain scans and algorithms to determine who received certain rights. Nobody would need to undertake this certification process unless they wanted access to women's spaces; if not, go on their way unmolested.
" For example pretending that the issue is seeing generic genitals without regard to sex - that was pretty blatant rationalization, which in a less fraught conversation he likely would not want to stand behind."
While I appreciate your attempt to see the good, I think you're wrong here. Note, Jared makes his assertion that women "can easily ignore a penis if it's not erect and being poked in their face" in his very first comment. The conversation wasn't fraught. There *was* no conversation at that point. I think he's standing behind this claim because he simply doesn't care about women's rights or boundaries.
As for holding his feet to the fire on specific points, that's a useful tactic if you're engaged with somebody who is genuinely interested in thinking about an issue. But Jared's arguments were so trivially idiotic that it's clear he was either unwilling or unable to consider any perspective that didn't make it as easy as possible for people with penises to enter women's spaces. Regardless of the implications to their safety and comfort. As you say, this isn't unprecedented when somebody is desperate to defend a pre-determined position. But in those cases, it's next to impossible to get them to think clearly, in real-time, during conversation on the internet.
Sometimes, when I'm debating someone particularly unreasonable, my focus isn't really on changing their mind. Or, at least not on making them admit they were wrong at that moment. The odds of that happening online are vanishingly small. Instead, I'm working through the logic in the hope of planting seeds in their mind that might bear fruit later. And also for other readers. My conversation with Jared has been read by hundreds of people on Medium. It's more for their sake that I'm working through the points. I don't think anything I said would have made Jared acknowledge the flaws in his arguments, even though I find it very hard to believe he didn't see them. Indeed, whenever I made a point that he couldn't refute, he just ignored it and moved on.
So yes, I think Jared is concerned with protecting trans people, who are indeed a vulnerable population. I'm concerned with protecting them too. I'm simply not willing to unilaterally trample over the rights of *another* vulnerable population in order to do so. Compromise is required on both sides of this debate. There is no solution that will make everybody 100% happy. But it's the utter disdain for women's rights and boundaries that I found not just "irritating" but downright disgusting.
Thank you for arguing on the behalf of women. You outline perfectly what the conflict is. Self ID is going to fail sooner or later and we are going to have to deal with the fallout. Unfortunately, some women are going to be hurt in the interim. There is a happy medium in here somewhere and a solution (some kind of testing or screening), but it won't be reached via defensive, irrational, hyperbolic thought.
I think the real truth about trans activists is that they are so desperate to secure rights for trans people, that they just don't care if they make the lives of cis women worse. They rationalize that trans folk have been harassed, vilified, incarcerated, murdered, and driven to suicide for millennia. So, it's their turn to ignore the well-being of others to achieve their agenda. I completely understand their POV. But I adamantly oppose it. It is not acceptable to diminish women's rights to secure rights for trans women.
Not even being able to have the conversation is a huge problem that is in the way of finding actual solutions. But, you are dealing with a "righteous mind." John McWhorter calls this type of woke person "the Elect" - people who have anointed themselves as the arbiters of ultimate truth and will not be swayed. Their cause is so righteous and just that any behavior or argument they make is also righteous and just, even if it causes harm to others.
I love how valiant you were in trying to reach this person. Your arguments were lucid, concise, and fair. You are seeking a solution that doesn't dehumanize anyone and works for everyone. He just refused to see that.
The whole fight against woke ideology is encapsulated in your statement: “God, you ’woke‘ lot are so convinced you have the moral high ground, you don’t even see that your arguments are almost always dripping with racism and/or misogyny.” This is the problem in a nutshell. They have declared the right to dehumanize in pursuit of their perfect world. And this position/sentiment is the very crux of every single mass extermination event that has ever happened on this planet.
One of the reasons I subscribed to your substack was to support your arguments. You are very, very good at reasoned debate, maybe the best I've read. And, I read widely on woke ideology as it scares the crap out of me. All puritanical, orthodox belief systems that justify destruction of people and lives scare the crap out of me. I say this as a former lefty, now independent. I so appreciate the work you are doing. Thank you!
"They rationalize that trans folk have been harassed, vilified, incarcerated, murdered, and driven to suicide for millennia."
I mean, maybe I'm ignorant on this issue, but is this true? In the west, medical transition has only been feasible for what? The past 50 years at most? Before that trans people would have meant transvestites or sissies. Tomboys and butch women. They certainly faced stigma and abuse, they were certainly forced to hide who they were, and I'm very glad that's less the case today than it was. I think society as a whole benefits from continuing to free people from gender policing. But women have lived with the exact same problems in addition to those that come with being female.
Elsewhere in the world, trans people are much more widely accepted as far as I understand. Although they aren't called trans. Thailand, India, Samoa. Gender fluidity is much more normalised in other cultures. What strikes me as unique about the trans movement in the West, is that it tries to deny or at least obfuscate the difference between male and female. These other cultures don't do this. And it's this denialism which I think is causing 90% of the tension.
In fact, one of the most prominent trans men, and a key figure in breaking down barriers in trans acceptance and visibility, Buck Angel, is an outcast in today's trans community because he's unwilling to obfuscate the difference between male and female.
And thank you for your kind words. Woke ideology is a genuinely terrifying threat to society. Puritanical is precisely the word. And the worst thing is that they've weaponised people's instincts to be kind to allow the most cruel, bigoted, spiteful people to believe they're on the "right side of history." These movements always collapse under their own evil in the end. The problem, as you say, is how much harm they'll do before that happens.
I actually don't know if it's true. I know that it has been true for many gay people and I have read these claims pertaining to trans folk on various media. How much is true and how much is hyperbole I don't know. But, my general impression is that TRAs believe it's true.
Tangent, I'm afraid. First of all I confess some indifference to these "trans" issues, given that over half the world's wildlife has disappeared since 1970, we are at the befinning og the greatest mass extinction since the Cretaceous collision, democracy in the USA is coming to an end, the world is entering a period of instability and violence that will likely dwarf the Second World War, and on and on and on ,,,
... yet the hot subject of debate is what a writer of children's books thinks about trans people.
Priorities, please.
I don't care what she thinks or says. I've known many transgendered people, dated a few of them, care about them (can't say the same for the "nonbinary" crowd), and if anyone wants to raise my taxes to help them, it is with my blessing.
It's not that we can't care about more than one issue at a time. But ... who gets to use which bathrooms? A lot of countries don't even gender-segregate them.
While I fully understand your irritation at Jared, keeping your first rule is probably still a good idea. It doesn't help to get down into the mud with certain folks, slinging insults. Take the high road whenever you can; it's one of your strengths that you can make good cases which don't need the mud slinging; let others who cannot demonstrate the weakness of their position. (This is a constant struggle for me as well, I'm not looking down!).
I actually do think that Jared is trying to protect what he thinks is an exceedingly vulnerable population. He is not seeking to cause harm. So he's not a morally terrible person. However, no matter how noble the cause in his mind, he is using poor reasoning and evidence. For example pretending that the issue is seeing generic genitals without regard to sex - that was pretty blatant rationalization, which in a less fraught conversation he likely would not want to stand behind.
In Johnathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind" (which btw has my highest recommendation!!), he writes at one point about how and why people try to find supposedly 'rational' arguments to support a pre-determined "moral" outcome, and how that has been researched. He gives an example used by researchers, a story about a brother and sister (I decided to let readers follow it for themselves, description deleted). It's really interesting seeing the kinds of desperate mental acrobatics that people go through to "justify" with reasoning, a conclusion which was not reached by reasoning and which is resistant to being dislodged by reasoning. They will say nonsense things which under other circumstances they would see as nonsense, but convince themselves it makes sense somehow at the moment. It's very hard to get them to see something they don't want to see.
Nevertheless, we try - sometimes more for other people who might observe the interaction and still be less attached to a conclusion, than for the conversant. Or sometimes to plant a seed which will later blossom (very rarely immediately).
In that spirit, I would like to calmly ask Jared how one can reliably tell the difference between somebody who is genuinely trans, and somebody who merely claims to be trans for some other reason or purpose. The other purpose could be getting access to women's spaces for sexual kicks, to women's sports for success purposes, to women's prisons to seek an easier prison time with more potentials for sex, or anything else.
Is there any real world objective test which can be done - lab tests, brain scans, reaction times, etc? Is there any psychological test which can distinguish fraudulent from legitimate trans identification? Or is trans identity entirely subjective with no possibility of real world validation?
If he brings up brain scans, there is some interesting discussion to be had about the actual state of the research, which will likely not please him. (As a short summary, some trans identified folks do show statistical differences from their biological sex, but also from the other biological sex; researchers can distinguish separate clusters for cis males, cis females, trans males, trans females. The do not match the other sex tho. And other trans folks may not even pass this test, being closer to their biological sex cluster).
These are simple questions; don't let him divert to an easier topic, don't follow him onto another thread until he can answer this.
If there was a reliable means of testing, I think a lot of the problems would go away. Those who had objective evidence of trans status could be given some of those rights, those who did not would not get the rights. Real trans folks would be supported, imposters would be punished and removed from women's spaces (and would seldom try).
If he admits that there is no such thing now, ask if he would support an effort to develop such a scientifically valid test, so that we could meet the needs of trans folk to do their thing, and women to be able to have their spaces. A win/win which would greatly ease things for trans folks by respecting women's spaces too. For example, we could try to develop some procedure using brain scans and algorithms to determine who received certain rights. Nobody would need to undertake this certification process unless they wanted access to women's spaces; if not, go on their way unmolested.
" For example pretending that the issue is seeing generic genitals without regard to sex - that was pretty blatant rationalization, which in a less fraught conversation he likely would not want to stand behind."
While I appreciate your attempt to see the good, I think you're wrong here. Note, Jared makes his assertion that women "can easily ignore a penis if it's not erect and being poked in their face" in his very first comment. The conversation wasn't fraught. There *was* no conversation at that point. I think he's standing behind this claim because he simply doesn't care about women's rights or boundaries.
As for holding his feet to the fire on specific points, that's a useful tactic if you're engaged with somebody who is genuinely interested in thinking about an issue. But Jared's arguments were so trivially idiotic that it's clear he was either unwilling or unable to consider any perspective that didn't make it as easy as possible for people with penises to enter women's spaces. Regardless of the implications to their safety and comfort. As you say, this isn't unprecedented when somebody is desperate to defend a pre-determined position. But in those cases, it's next to impossible to get them to think clearly, in real-time, during conversation on the internet.
Sometimes, when I'm debating someone particularly unreasonable, my focus isn't really on changing their mind. Or, at least not on making them admit they were wrong at that moment. The odds of that happening online are vanishingly small. Instead, I'm working through the logic in the hope of planting seeds in their mind that might bear fruit later. And also for other readers. My conversation with Jared has been read by hundreds of people on Medium. It's more for their sake that I'm working through the points. I don't think anything I said would have made Jared acknowledge the flaws in his arguments, even though I find it very hard to believe he didn't see them. Indeed, whenever I made a point that he couldn't refute, he just ignored it and moved on.
So yes, I think Jared is concerned with protecting trans people, who are indeed a vulnerable population. I'm concerned with protecting them too. I'm simply not willing to unilaterally trample over the rights of *another* vulnerable population in order to do so. Compromise is required on both sides of this debate. There is no solution that will make everybody 100% happy. But it's the utter disdain for women's rights and boundaries that I found not just "irritating" but downright disgusting.
Thank you for arguing on the behalf of women. You outline perfectly what the conflict is. Self ID is going to fail sooner or later and we are going to have to deal with the fallout. Unfortunately, some women are going to be hurt in the interim. There is a happy medium in here somewhere and a solution (some kind of testing or screening), but it won't be reached via defensive, irrational, hyperbolic thought.
I think the real truth about trans activists is that they are so desperate to secure rights for trans people, that they just don't care if they make the lives of cis women worse. They rationalize that trans folk have been harassed, vilified, incarcerated, murdered, and driven to suicide for millennia. So, it's their turn to ignore the well-being of others to achieve their agenda. I completely understand their POV. But I adamantly oppose it. It is not acceptable to diminish women's rights to secure rights for trans women.
Not even being able to have the conversation is a huge problem that is in the way of finding actual solutions. But, you are dealing with a "righteous mind." John McWhorter calls this type of woke person "the Elect" - people who have anointed themselves as the arbiters of ultimate truth and will not be swayed. Their cause is so righteous and just that any behavior or argument they make is also righteous and just, even if it causes harm to others.
I love how valiant you were in trying to reach this person. Your arguments were lucid, concise, and fair. You are seeking a solution that doesn't dehumanize anyone and works for everyone. He just refused to see that.
The whole fight against woke ideology is encapsulated in your statement: “God, you ’woke‘ lot are so convinced you have the moral high ground, you don’t even see that your arguments are almost always dripping with racism and/or misogyny.” This is the problem in a nutshell. They have declared the right to dehumanize in pursuit of their perfect world. And this position/sentiment is the very crux of every single mass extermination event that has ever happened on this planet.
One of the reasons I subscribed to your substack was to support your arguments. You are very, very good at reasoned debate, maybe the best I've read. And, I read widely on woke ideology as it scares the crap out of me. All puritanical, orthodox belief systems that justify destruction of people and lives scare the crap out of me. I say this as a former lefty, now independent. I so appreciate the work you are doing. Thank you!
"They rationalize that trans folk have been harassed, vilified, incarcerated, murdered, and driven to suicide for millennia."
I mean, maybe I'm ignorant on this issue, but is this true? In the west, medical transition has only been feasible for what? The past 50 years at most? Before that trans people would have meant transvestites or sissies. Tomboys and butch women. They certainly faced stigma and abuse, they were certainly forced to hide who they were, and I'm very glad that's less the case today than it was. I think society as a whole benefits from continuing to free people from gender policing. But women have lived with the exact same problems in addition to those that come with being female.
Elsewhere in the world, trans people are much more widely accepted as far as I understand. Although they aren't called trans. Thailand, India, Samoa. Gender fluidity is much more normalised in other cultures. What strikes me as unique about the trans movement in the West, is that it tries to deny or at least obfuscate the difference between male and female. These other cultures don't do this. And it's this denialism which I think is causing 90% of the tension.
In fact, one of the most prominent trans men, and a key figure in breaking down barriers in trans acceptance and visibility, Buck Angel, is an outcast in today's trans community because he's unwilling to obfuscate the difference between male and female.
And thank you for your kind words. Woke ideology is a genuinely terrifying threat to society. Puritanical is precisely the word. And the worst thing is that they've weaponised people's instincts to be kind to allow the most cruel, bigoted, spiteful people to believe they're on the "right side of history." These movements always collapse under their own evil in the end. The problem, as you say, is how much harm they'll do before that happens.
I actually don't know if it's true. I know that it has been true for many gay people and I have read these claims pertaining to trans folk on various media. How much is true and how much is hyperbole I don't know. But, my general impression is that TRAs believe it's true.
Tangent, I'm afraid. First of all I confess some indifference to these "trans" issues, given that over half the world's wildlife has disappeared since 1970, we are at the befinning og the greatest mass extinction since the Cretaceous collision, democracy in the USA is coming to an end, the world is entering a period of instability and violence that will likely dwarf the Second World War, and on and on and on ,,,
... yet the hot subject of debate is what a writer of children's books thinks about trans people.
Priorities, please.
I don't care what she thinks or says. I've known many transgendered people, dated a few of them, care about them (can't say the same for the "nonbinary" crowd), and if anyone wants to raise my taxes to help them, it is with my blessing.
It's not that we can't care about more than one issue at a time. But ... who gets to use which bathrooms? A lot of countries don't even gender-segregate them.