" 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 easi…
" 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.
" 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.