I wasn’t planning to share this conversation. “Writer criticises trans activism, receives disproportionate and hyperbolic abuse,” is hardly a newsflash in 2022. But a) this conversation is interesting in its own right, and b) it’s vital context for an even more interesting conversation that I’ll be posting later this week. In my article, Trans Activism’s Self-Inflicted Backlash, I pointed out that trans discourse is becoming so incoherent and irresponsible that even grifters like Matt Walsh can seem like the reasonable person in the room.
Bear with me if you will. I hope to tie this to Stephanie's mindset (but I can't read minds).
Trying to learn more about the issue I discovered (I didn't know this) that there are more than two biological sexes with implications not fully understood. From this (https://tinyurl.com/ybjwfctv) source:
The six biological karyotype sexes that do not result in death to the fetus are:
X – Roughly 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 5,000 people (Turner’s )
𝗫𝗫 – Most common form of female
XXY – Roughly 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 people (Klinefelter)
In all of your discussions with transgender people, have any mentioned that they have one of the uncommon non XX or XY biological karyotype sexes? Gender dysphoria would probably be more comprehensible to the lay person in those cases even though the article states the gender is something else.
I've mentioned the following more tersely, but I use the quote:
The tie in (again, I cannot read minds) is that the unbending militancy of people like Stephanie is that they are genuinely frustrated by people (heterosexual men and lesbian women in particular I would think) who respond to “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘴” with "𝘈𝘩, 𝘯𝘰, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘴." 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗱𝗻'𝘁 𝘀𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗻'𝘁 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗽𝗵𝘆𝘀𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 "𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴." It is unfortunate that biological sex and gender use the same words (male and female) because this is what we get.
Frustration does not alter the fact that if you start a conversation/debate with an insult as you figuratively spit in their eye, there is not much hope of anything productive following. That goes to the heart of your point that hostile militancy does not help their cause, even when you can empathize with their frustration. When they go further and try to harm you (job, income, reputation) they should expect hostility in return.
A lot of words to agree with you. I do wonder about the relationship between the uncommon biological karyotypes and gender dysphoria though. How often is it a factor, if it is? Does it matter.
Hey Dave! Your question sent me tumbling down a rabbit hole of intersex research yesterday! And I thought you might be interested in this one as it speaks to the complexity of these issues.
I just learned about a condition called Swyer syndrome (https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/swyer-syndrome/). It's extremely rare, affecting something like 1 in 20,000-80,000 births, where a male with XY chromosomes doesn't go through the normal sex differentiation in the womb (we all start out female), and so develops an ambiguous penis or sometimes no penis at all.
They don't go through puberty naturally and require hormones to develop secondary sex characteristics, and are almost always infertile, although there is at least one recorded case of a person with this condition getting pregnant. So I stand corrected, there's at least one case of somebody who was technically male getting pregnant! 😁
Still nothing to do with trans people or new sexes, but fascinating.
In a gay bar one evening I saw a young man with a much older one and the younger was almost certainly a case of androgen insensitivity syndrome. He had the subcutaneous facial fat of a barely overweight woman and everything about his posture and expressions and even to the angle at which he held a cigarette was not just effeminate, but feminine.
And in Norfolk I knew one person with something like both kinds of genitalia; I didn't turn on the light for a better look but he told me he was a "he-she" and that he sometimes worked as a prostitute and that the marks didn't care.
"Trying to learn more about the issue I discovered (I didn't know this) that there are more than two biological sexes with implications not fully understood."
No, this isn't quite true. Karyotypic variations aren't new sexes, though they're often incorrectly framed that way, they're just chromosomal differences, like Down's syndrome for example. A new biological sex would be a human who produced a new type of gamete or had a role in sexual reproduction other than providing the sperm or the egg. No such human exists.
A single X chromosome produces females (with Turner syndrome as you say). XXY, XYY and XXXY chromosomes all produce males with various symptoms or sometimes no symptoms at all. These people are infertile in many cases, but again, that doesn't make then a new sex.
But beyond that, the key point to bear in mind is that intersex conditions have nothing to do with trans identities.
As far as I know, there's only one person on Medium who is both intersex and identifies as trans. And, ironically enough, he's the first person to criticise trans people who conflate being trans with intersex conditions. Even if there were multiple sexes, it still wouldn't mean that a male becomes a female by "feeling" like one.
The overwhelming majority of trans people are just garden-variety males and females, which is obvious just from the incredible rarity of intersex conditions. Extreeeemly occasionally, the external genitalia of males and females is ambiguous enough that it's not immediately obvious which they are just by looking (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/). But my fun fact of the day is that this happens almost exactly as rarely as flipping a coin and having it land in its edge (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993PhRvE..48.2547M/abstract).
I can't remember where I saw it. Mebbe on this very forum. An Intersex person said they didn't want to have anything to do with the TIAQN+ variety of the LGB group. Sample size of one, so there is that. But I'd be surprised if it wasn't the majority. Many have said that they have a unique, very *difficult* path. Luckily, for the majority, they're a fraction of a fraction of a percentage. I feel for them, best I can.. But I haven't managed to be able to imagine the difficulties.
TY, Dave, for the research. I didn't know all the variations and dunno very much about how all the different [Edit: "genotypes" -> "karotypes"] present themselves. And funny how just about *any* "conversation" online can devolve down to insults pretty quickly, amongst certain people.
Well, I deal with hate-filled radicals when I'm litterpicking and helping homeless addicted folks in tent encampments, so I get the spewing of hatred. Sometimes it's a bot, but other times it's a flavor of "mutual aid" that rejects all interventions in order to make some kind of nihilistic anti-social point. I don't give them much oxygen online and when I encounter them at the encampments, I ask them to get to work cleaning up the mountains of garbage. I'd say the person you're debating and discussing with here is either a bot or a hate-filled radical. Either way, it's mostly a waste of time to try and have a discussion.
"I'd say the person you're debating and discussing with here is either a bot or a hate-filled radical. Either way, it's mostly a waste of time to try and have a discussion."
Definitely not a bot unless they've made huge progress in swearing and hyperbole algorithms. 😄 Let me know if you think it was a waste of time after part 2. You might still think so. That wouldn't be an unreasonable position. But I don't.
I forgot to add troll / bomb thrower to that list with bots and hate-filled radicals. In the political world, unless I'm dealing with a bipartisan person who can debate and reason, I get spewed with vitriol by the fringe left and right. The trans topic is fairly political, so it makes sense to me that you get spewed with your reasonable position. I do think your arguments are reasonable, but when I post a piece of yours on my Facebook page, one of my frenemies refers to you as conservative. Hopefully people are a hybrid of liberal and conservative, but I don't find you to be a conservative. Also, with a trans nephew, even from a young age he did not want to change clothes in the presence of others even before taking hormones as an adult. I don't know if trans folks in general would want to be in an open locker room changing clothes. Of course, a sexual predator would, though, to your point.
"In the political world, unless I'm dealing with a bipartisan person who can debate and reason, I get spewed with vitriol by the fringe left and right"
😅 Yep, I know that feeling. I definitely don't consider myself a conservative. Very far from it in fact. Politics has just become so extreme now that anybody who's even vaguely towards the middle is seen as "right-wing" by the fringe Left and a "leftist" by the fringe Right. And more and more people are getting pushed toward the fringes by social media and the 24 hour news cycle.
And yeah, this is the tragedy of discussions about trans people. If we could get rid of the predators and the people (read: men) who want to indulge their AGP at all costs, I think this would be a fairly easy problem to resolve. Indeed, it basically *was* resolved. Trans people have been around for a long time. But it's only in the past 5-10 years or so that there's been this all-out attack on the notion of womanhood.
Ironically, this is another issues where I get criticised by both sides because I'm not absolutist enough.
'Trans rights' has become the left's War on Women. I assume Stephanie is trans because she pulls out the tired stock 'You're making our lives unsafer,' which is exactly what she's doing to herself. These people project all their own worst impulses and faults onto others. It's why we women keep getting accused of 'not wanting trans people to exist' when in fact they're the ones trying to change the definition of 'woman', not us. Or misgendering men to compete on women's sports teams, and of course get access to women's-only spaces. Stephanie might quite rightly argue they're not 'real trans' (I agree with you both here) but her attitude and those like her sure does make it easier for sexual predators to take advantage of a fuzzy-headed movement and endanger women. And then there's the whole idea that we're 'literally killing trans people' and 'inciting violence against transpeople' when it's transwomen, and transactivists who may or may not be trans themselves (but are always men if they aren't) attacking women, and particularly lesbians, at protests. I don't know of a single case where women attacked transactivists physically, probably because they know these guys can kick their asses.
"'Trans rights' has become the left's War on Women."
100%. I swear, I really try to pay attention to society in general, but the trans debate has been so unbelievably eye-opening to me as regards the extent to which women's needs and boundaries are just inconsequential to huge swathes of society. Including, I'm astonished to say, some women.
Everybody knows that conservatives are more...ahem, "traditional" in their views on women. But the sixes of the left is insane. Not least because it masquerades so insistently as being progressive.
I don't agree with Stephanie's "not true trans woman" argument, but it's a distraction so I don't bother arguing. The point is male violence. It doesn't matter to women if that violence is being carried out by a male who "believes" he's a female. But the aggression that is so typically evident in trans women, and so mysteriously lacking in trans men, certainly seems to suggest there's something to this whole "millions of years of biology" thing.
Dude, even *my* eyes have been opened to how valueless we are to so many! There's a woman who writes a column in the Toronto Star I can't stand, she always struck me as such a whiny, victimized little girl, always blaming men for everything, never holding women responsible for themselves, and she often said, "Never underestimate how much women are hated." And I just chalked it up to her blaming it all on The Patriarchy (dun-dun-DUUUUNNN!). But now, in the last year or so, I've begun to admit to myself that maybe she was right all along.
And yeah, some of those people who hate women...perhaps unconsciously are...so-called 'progressive, feminist' women.
If nothing else, the intense narcissism and misogyny in the trans movement is exposing just how misogynist the left actually is. It ain't just for conservatives anymore.
There are no "true trans" women or men out there, there are just men and women (a very, very limited number of them) affected by a more or less severe form of dysphoria, a condition for which there are no known cures. They continue to be men and women, regardless of the clothes they wear, the names they give themselves, the pronouns they use, or the body modifications they go through. The sex is immutable, regardless of one's ideology or feelings. There was a time when I couldn't care less of how some of these people wanted to be perceived, and I voluntarily played along with their demands and wishes. But that time is gone, the damage has been done already, and I am no longer willing to pretend the emperor is clothed. We should have seen the writing on the wall when men affected by this condition decided to call themselves "transwomen" instead of "transmen" (as in "men who are trans"), the very first attempt to erase and appropriate our existence. This was the ultimate form of misogyny, but somehow we missed it (as women, we have been conditioned to this: in our willingness to "be kind" and "help" and "include", we have participated to our own obliteration). I am done, and I don't care if people call me TERF, I will wear it as a badge of honor.
"There are no "true trans" women or men out there"
Hmmm, I understand why you feel this way but I really don’t think this is true. I’ve spent too much time watching and reading the stories of trans people who transitioned when they were young and whose transition is very obviously genuine. People who couldn’t be less interested in using trans ideology to make women uncomfortable and who "pass" so convincingly that they’d never make any woman uncomfortable anyway.
It seems to me the there are reasonable standards for “transness” that could satisfy everybody. Even though, of course, you're right. Sex is immutable. Where sex is centrally important, in sports for example, I think there should still be separate categories. But in cases where it's not, if, for example, only trans women who had sex reassignment surgery could use women's bathrooms or changing rooms, would you still feel the same way?
I am not very sure, but I would likely feel the same. 99% of sex crimes are committed by men (males), and the number doesn't budge even factoring in the trans community. 99% sex crimes in the trans community are committed by transwomen (males, intact or not). I forget where I saw the statistics, but I saved the study done in the prison population, that clearly showed the violence pattern remained intact even after transition. I have nothing against unisex toilets as long as there are also women toilets as an alternative. BTW, you would think the trans community is made mostly of people who are genuinely suffering from gender dysphoria, and who feel some degree of alleviation by impersonating the gender they feel represents them (that's your assertion, at least). I would love that to be the case! This community is tiny, tiny, and they are really the victims of everything else that happens in their name. But, alas, it is no longer the case. Predatory or violent men (males) who do this for sexual reward (autogynephilic men and people with other countless paraphilia) have taken hold of the movement and the community, and they dominate the discourse and most organization. The shift has been very obvious in the last 2 years, and unfortunately we all suffer the consequences. The most recent developments are the claims made by paedophilic organizations that they are an oppressed minority, and they are, like transgender people, suffering from a dysphoria-type of condition that merits decriminalization. Look up the latest Pride Parade in Cologne (Germany), and the banners representing MAP ("minor attracted people", a name invented by an academic - coincidentally or not trans), and what they are asking for. I am part of a few feminist organizations, and the rape and death threats we receive daily from the TRA (plus the pictures of erect penises de rigueur, which are supposed to choke us to death) are something I have never, ever seen before. In the latest Pride parades there were always incidents and conflicts between the TRA and lesbians, not only in the US, but also in Europe (Spain, France, UK). It is beyond toxic - you are too kind, probably because you don't deal with this daily, as we do. I wish I could send you the list of the few thousand videos of men dressed as women (are they trans? are they only putting on a dress to claim they belong to this community? who knows? how can we tell the difference?) who are jerking off in women's toilets (sometimes in the sink, and there are kid's voices in the background), in women's dressing rooms, etc. (you get the spiel). These clips have been painstakingly collected by women who have been abused by "men in dresses" and now they are freaking out (who can blame them?). So, again, how can we tell who is a "true trans"????? Should we do a genital check to make sure they are not penised? See how complicated this issue is? Now imagine that the self-ID laws have been around since 2015, in Ireland. That means it is enough for a man to declare he is a woman to be considered as such (no background checks or medical reports). Any man (regardless of how he presents) can automatically access women's toilets, hospital wards, dressing rooms, women's shelters, rape crisis centers, etc., just by saying he is a woman. Women have already been fined for this. Not kidding. You think it's small, it is in fact very serious.
You keep on writing about this issue as if I'm unaware of the complexities of it. Or as if I'm unaware of the stories you're mentioning. I can promise you I'm not. I've been researching this for a good four years at this point. I promise I'm paying at least as much attention as you are.
Transition doesn't mean sexual reassignment surgery. It can apply to any degree of social transition or even, in the case of prisons, no transition at all. It's policies like those that I'm arguing very strongly against. You don't need to tell me the importance of women's spaces, I've been arguing for preserving them since I first started writing about trans issues. But I'm looking for a standard of womanhood that is reasonable for trans people who are genuinely suffering from gender dysphoria.
Full sexual reassignment, as in removal of testes and penis, seems to be a reasonable standard to me. First, that's a reasonable measure for whether somebody is genuinely dysphoric. Second, without testes, male aggression decreases significantly (we see this in all animal species, of course, it's why we neuter dogs). And third, it changes the character of sexual abuse completely. Women can and very occasionally do assault other women. But the lack of a penis and male strength make it a completely different issue.
As for how to tell what degree of transition somebody has undergone, it depends on the space you're talking about.
For bathrooms, I suggest we do exactly what we do now, which is appraise people based on how masculine/feminine they look. Women already find themselves challenged in bathrooms sometimes if they look too butch. There's a fair chance you've already shared a bathroom with a trans woman. Ands it's almost certain that you've been around a trans woman and not realised. Nobody checks genitals right now to see if you can get into a bathroom, they simply look at your face and if you're feminine looking enough they don't challenge it.
For sport, I think we should be able to look at medical history. Elite athletes already undergo drug tests, why should sex tests be any different?
For legal recognition as a woman (as in having "F" on your birth certificate), I think you should have to undergo sex reassignment for reasons laid out above. No regular genital checks necessary, that's all taken care of during the application process. If you don't want that surgery, you are recognised as a trans woman, but not as a female.
If you want to access a rape crisis centre for example, they should absolutely have to verify whether you're female or male. Most crisis centres offer services for trans women, I think that's a good thing. But they should also offer services exclusively for females.
You're arguing against overly permissive regulations for trans inclusion. I am too. I can't understand how you're not seeing that. Every word I've ever written on the topic is in support of women's right to have their own spaces and of the fact that including men in female spaces just because they say "I'm a woman" is irresponsible, dangerous and deeply misogynistic. I've argued specifically against selfID in pretty much every article I've ever written. Don't mistake a desire for nuance and a consideration for people with genuine dysphoria as a failure to understand the issues.
I detect some annoyance in your tone, and I suppose the way I expressed my arguments made you think I was accusing you of stuff. I'm not. We are both arguing against over permissive regulations for trans inclusion, great! I guess I thought I could be angry and bitch about this, as someone who is not allowed to refer at herself with her own language, and who is now a subsection of her own sex category (cis and trans, right?). And of course I shared toilets with transgender women, I am even friends with a few. They are perfectly reasonable, and understand all of our concerns, including why I hate to call them women (I also commiserate when they say they hate NOT to be called women; in some ways, though, women instinctively know that once you have allowed that degree of impersonation, their complete erasure is just a matter of time - call it "surviving instinct"). They also understand how much of a slippery slope this whole issue has become, from erasing women as a sex category in law, to allowing males to dominate women's sports, to the self-ID madness. So we are on the same page, all good. Keep doing what you do.
A few decades ago there were exactly three hospitals in the USA authorized to do gender reassignment surgery and they had very strict criteria for qualification. Of course this was before a few conservative parents forbade affirmation and caused a few suicides,. leading to the overreaction and the condition we have now where anyone with Internet access and some money can get sliced and parents cannot stop it short of kidnapping.
"This was the ultimate form of misogyny, but somehow we missed it (as women, we have been conditioned to this: in our willingness to "be kind" and "help" and "include", we have participated to our own obliteration)."
No kidding! I've written myself about how dislodging the patriarchy and misogyny between female ears will take a lot longer than the 100+ years of modern feminism. There are a lot of female psychological virtues/vulnerabilities you see on the left - like wanting to be 'liked', and be 'kind' and 'inclusive'. Those are all good things, but taken to the extreme, it allows certain types of men to victimize women. Women are often too collaborative in their own oppression, and many are unwilling to acknowledge it. As for the feminist lackeys of misogyny on the too-far left, they will likely never change because it's too intolerable to admit one was so hideously wrong about misogyny in dresses. Who would want to admit to themselves that they're collaborators to The Patriarchy (dun dun DUUUUNNN?) Without that patriarchy uprooted from their brains, they are, exactly like angry men on the right and left, too willing to throw women under the bus.
A few years ago I read a book about how deeply entrenched misogyny was in abusive men, and how it's near-impossible to dislodge it with therapy. I hope it won't prove as difficult to dislodge it in women.
People operating from earlier stages of Adult Development see things more in terms of black and white, think that you are either ‘with me or against me’, and their behavior is informed by reward and punishment. It is more likely for someone in the earlier stages to "Listen to Win," and to think that there is something wrong with you if you disagree with their perspective.
People operating from later stages are able to see gray and nuance, can accept that others may have a perspective that informs the whole, rely on their own value system to know wrong from right, and are more likely to “listen to learn,” which allows them to refine their mental models.
Even folks who have made it to later stages of development can ‘fall back’ to earlier stages in some contexts. ‘Fall back’ is a way that I explain the state of public discourse to myself - and how I am making sense of Stephanie’s way of engaging here.
Unfortunately, as much as I can make sense of what is happening and even why it is happening through this framework, it isn’t always clear how we amplify kindness, safety and care so that more of us can show up at our best. There is a lot of anger, fear and trauma out there, and that so often gets in our way.
Kudos to you, Steve, for wanting to cultivate a space for constructive dialogue.
"People operating from earlier stages of Adult Development see things more in terms of black and white, think that you are either ‘with me or against me’, "
It's fascinating to me how common this way of thinking has become across a whole range of social and political issues. But yes, the question of motivation is hugely important. That's what I wanted to share this, and particularly the next conversation with Stephanie.
"That’s why I’m at such pains to remind myself, and everybody else, that people like Stephanie do not represent the trans community."
And Donald Trump doesn't represent the Republican Party. Teeth-gnashing fundamentalists don't represent American Christians. Leather-clad sadomasochists pantomiming analingus on pride parade floats didn't represent gay men.
These are true for the most determined scholars; for the great majority of people less careful, all four do indeed represent their respective tribes, making bigots' jobs so very much easier.
Most people don't know any "trans" people. There may be that one tiresome person in the office who has "their" own reserved seat in Human Resources for constantly creating conflicts over unmet identity demands. For most of us the people you're talking about are the face of "trans," with their pronoun pairs and their "queer" credentials in their online profiles. And it will not take too many 13yo girls going under the knife against parents' wishes in a paroxysm of affirmation to turn millions of votes against the party more aligned with the "woke" crowd.
"That’s why I’m at such pains to remind myself, and everybody else, that people like Stephanie do not represent the trans community."
Problem is, Steve, they do represent the "trans" community. Maybe they weren't elected to the position but in the same way that Trump Won Republicans represent their party and fundamentalst bigots represent American Christians, people like Stephanie are indeed its public face. They make all the impressions and they arouse the backlash you wrote about, affecting the innocent few who really are dysphoric.
Political progress for gays was held back for at least a generation by lewd separatists who sought and received validation by being as offensive as they could manage, and loud about it too. Yes one can be scholarly and precise enough to point out that the Stephanies don't really represent their community but, well, good luck finding anyone who has any other impression, aside from "woke" people who are every bit as obnoxious, policing everyone else.
"You got your bros fist bumping themselves and slapping you on the back, you certainly don't care about having a 'conversation'".
Easily the funniest quote in any comment in anything you've written.
Bear with me if you will. I hope to tie this to Stephanie's mindset (but I can't read minds).
Trying to learn more about the issue I discovered (I didn't know this) that there are more than two biological sexes with implications not fully understood. From this (https://tinyurl.com/ybjwfctv) source:
The six biological karyotype sexes that do not result in death to the fetus are:
X – Roughly 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 5,000 people (Turner’s )
𝗫𝗫 – Most common form of female
XXY – Roughly 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 people (Klinefelter)
𝗫𝗬 – Most common form of male
XYY – Roughly 1 out of 1,000 people
XXXY – Roughly 1 in 18,000 to 1 in 50,000 births
"𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 7,000,000,000 𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘦. 𝘔𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘹. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺, 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘟𝘠 𝘰𝘳 𝘟𝘟."
In all of your discussions with transgender people, have any mentioned that they have one of the uncommon non XX or XY biological karyotype sexes? Gender dysphoria would probably be more comprehensible to the lay person in those cases even though the article states the gender is something else.
I've mentioned the following more tersely, but I use the quote:
"𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘺, “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘴”, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮 “𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯” 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘦𝘹. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘷𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘣𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘷𝘪𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘢. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘱𝘩𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴, 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘵."
The tie in (again, I cannot read minds) is that the unbending militancy of people like Stephanie is that they are genuinely frustrated by people (heterosexual men and lesbian women in particular I would think) who respond to “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘴” with "𝘈𝘩, 𝘯𝘰, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘴." 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗱𝗻'𝘁 𝘀𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗻'𝘁 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗽𝗵𝘆𝘀𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 "𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴." It is unfortunate that biological sex and gender use the same words (male and female) because this is what we get.
Frustration does not alter the fact that if you start a conversation/debate with an insult as you figuratively spit in their eye, there is not much hope of anything productive following. That goes to the heart of your point that hostile militancy does not help their cause, even when you can empathize with their frustration. When they go further and try to harm you (job, income, reputation) they should expect hostility in return.
A lot of words to agree with you. I do wonder about the relationship between the uncommon biological karyotypes and gender dysphoria though. How often is it a factor, if it is? Does it matter.
Hey Dave! Your question sent me tumbling down a rabbit hole of intersex research yesterday! And I thought you might be interested in this one as it speaks to the complexity of these issues.
I just learned about a condition called Swyer syndrome (https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/swyer-syndrome/). It's extremely rare, affecting something like 1 in 20,000-80,000 births, where a male with XY chromosomes doesn't go through the normal sex differentiation in the womb (we all start out female), and so develops an ambiguous penis or sometimes no penis at all.
They don't go through puberty naturally and require hormones to develop secondary sex characteristics, and are almost always infertile, although there is at least one recorded case of a person with this condition getting pregnant. So I stand corrected, there's at least one case of somebody who was technically male getting pregnant! 😁
Still nothing to do with trans people or new sexes, but fascinating.
In a gay bar one evening I saw a young man with a much older one and the younger was almost certainly a case of androgen insensitivity syndrome. He had the subcutaneous facial fat of a barely overweight woman and everything about his posture and expressions and even to the angle at which he held a cigarette was not just effeminate, but feminine.
And in Norfolk I knew one person with something like both kinds of genitalia; I didn't turn on the light for a better look but he told me he was a "he-she" and that he sometimes worked as a prostitute and that the marks didn't care.
"Trying to learn more about the issue I discovered (I didn't know this) that there are more than two biological sexes with implications not fully understood."
No, this isn't quite true. Karyotypic variations aren't new sexes, though they're often incorrectly framed that way, they're just chromosomal differences, like Down's syndrome for example. A new biological sex would be a human who produced a new type of gamete or had a role in sexual reproduction other than providing the sperm or the egg. No such human exists.
A single X chromosome produces females (with Turner syndrome as you say). XXY, XYY and XXXY chromosomes all produce males with various symptoms or sometimes no symptoms at all. These people are infertile in many cases, but again, that doesn't make then a new sex.
But beyond that, the key point to bear in mind is that intersex conditions have nothing to do with trans identities.
As far as I know, there's only one person on Medium who is both intersex and identifies as trans. And, ironically enough, he's the first person to criticise trans people who conflate being trans with intersex conditions. Even if there were multiple sexes, it still wouldn't mean that a male becomes a female by "feeling" like one.
The overwhelming majority of trans people are just garden-variety males and females, which is obvious just from the incredible rarity of intersex conditions. Extreeeemly occasionally, the external genitalia of males and females is ambiguous enough that it's not immediately obvious which they are just by looking (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/). But my fun fact of the day is that this happens almost exactly as rarely as flipping a coin and having it land in its edge (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993PhRvE..48.2547M/abstract).
Thanks for the clarification.
I can't remember where I saw it. Mebbe on this very forum. An Intersex person said they didn't want to have anything to do with the TIAQN+ variety of the LGB group. Sample size of one, so there is that. But I'd be surprised if it wasn't the majority. Many have said that they have a unique, very *difficult* path. Luckily, for the majority, they're a fraction of a fraction of a percentage. I feel for them, best I can.. But I haven't managed to be able to imagine the difficulties.
TY, Dave, for the research. I didn't know all the variations and dunno very much about how all the different [Edit: "genotypes" -> "karotypes"] present themselves. And funny how just about *any* "conversation" online can devolve down to insults pretty quickly, amongst certain people.
Those are not genders, they are developmental defects. The XYY is best-known from Richard Speck, who murdered seven student nurses.
There are others but they tend to die in the womb.
Well, I deal with hate-filled radicals when I'm litterpicking and helping homeless addicted folks in tent encampments, so I get the spewing of hatred. Sometimes it's a bot, but other times it's a flavor of "mutual aid" that rejects all interventions in order to make some kind of nihilistic anti-social point. I don't give them much oxygen online and when I encounter them at the encampments, I ask them to get to work cleaning up the mountains of garbage. I'd say the person you're debating and discussing with here is either a bot or a hate-filled radical. Either way, it's mostly a waste of time to try and have a discussion.
"I'd say the person you're debating and discussing with here is either a bot or a hate-filled radical. Either way, it's mostly a waste of time to try and have a discussion."
Definitely not a bot unless they've made huge progress in swearing and hyperbole algorithms. 😄 Let me know if you think it was a waste of time after part 2. You might still think so. That wouldn't be an unreasonable position. But I don't.
I forgot to add troll / bomb thrower to that list with bots and hate-filled radicals. In the political world, unless I'm dealing with a bipartisan person who can debate and reason, I get spewed with vitriol by the fringe left and right. The trans topic is fairly political, so it makes sense to me that you get spewed with your reasonable position. I do think your arguments are reasonable, but when I post a piece of yours on my Facebook page, one of my frenemies refers to you as conservative. Hopefully people are a hybrid of liberal and conservative, but I don't find you to be a conservative. Also, with a trans nephew, even from a young age he did not want to change clothes in the presence of others even before taking hormones as an adult. I don't know if trans folks in general would want to be in an open locker room changing clothes. Of course, a sexual predator would, though, to your point.
"In the political world, unless I'm dealing with a bipartisan person who can debate and reason, I get spewed with vitriol by the fringe left and right"
😅 Yep, I know that feeling. I definitely don't consider myself a conservative. Very far from it in fact. Politics has just become so extreme now that anybody who's even vaguely towards the middle is seen as "right-wing" by the fringe Left and a "leftist" by the fringe Right. And more and more people are getting pushed toward the fringes by social media and the 24 hour news cycle.
And yeah, this is the tragedy of discussions about trans people. If we could get rid of the predators and the people (read: men) who want to indulge their AGP at all costs, I think this would be a fairly easy problem to resolve. Indeed, it basically *was* resolved. Trans people have been around for a long time. But it's only in the past 5-10 years or so that there's been this all-out attack on the notion of womanhood.
Ironically, this is another issues where I get criticised by both sides because I'm not absolutist enough.
'Trans rights' has become the left's War on Women. I assume Stephanie is trans because she pulls out the tired stock 'You're making our lives unsafer,' which is exactly what she's doing to herself. These people project all their own worst impulses and faults onto others. It's why we women keep getting accused of 'not wanting trans people to exist' when in fact they're the ones trying to change the definition of 'woman', not us. Or misgendering men to compete on women's sports teams, and of course get access to women's-only spaces. Stephanie might quite rightly argue they're not 'real trans' (I agree with you both here) but her attitude and those like her sure does make it easier for sexual predators to take advantage of a fuzzy-headed movement and endanger women. And then there's the whole idea that we're 'literally killing trans people' and 'inciting violence against transpeople' when it's transwomen, and transactivists who may or may not be trans themselves (but are always men if they aren't) attacking women, and particularly lesbians, at protests. I don't know of a single case where women attacked transactivists physically, probably because they know these guys can kick their asses.
Bet Stephanie's still got 'the dangler'.
"'Trans rights' has become the left's War on Women."
100%. I swear, I really try to pay attention to society in general, but the trans debate has been so unbelievably eye-opening to me as regards the extent to which women's needs and boundaries are just inconsequential to huge swathes of society. Including, I'm astonished to say, some women.
Everybody knows that conservatives are more...ahem, "traditional" in their views on women. But the sixes of the left is insane. Not least because it masquerades so insistently as being progressive.
I don't agree with Stephanie's "not true trans woman" argument, but it's a distraction so I don't bother arguing. The point is male violence. It doesn't matter to women if that violence is being carried out by a male who "believes" he's a female. But the aggression that is so typically evident in trans women, and so mysteriously lacking in trans men, certainly seems to suggest there's something to this whole "millions of years of biology" thing.
Dude, even *my* eyes have been opened to how valueless we are to so many! There's a woman who writes a column in the Toronto Star I can't stand, she always struck me as such a whiny, victimized little girl, always blaming men for everything, never holding women responsible for themselves, and she often said, "Never underestimate how much women are hated." And I just chalked it up to her blaming it all on The Patriarchy (dun-dun-DUUUUNNN!). But now, in the last year or so, I've begun to admit to myself that maybe she was right all along.
And yeah, some of those people who hate women...perhaps unconsciously are...so-called 'progressive, feminist' women.
If nothing else, the intense narcissism and misogyny in the trans movement is exposing just how misogynist the left actually is. It ain't just for conservatives anymore.
"Dude, even *my* eyes have been opened to how valueless we are to so many!"
😅 Well, that makes me feel a little better. I saw this on Twitter a few days ago and I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FXIhaOUXwAE1Txk?format=jpg&name=medium
There are no "true trans" women or men out there, there are just men and women (a very, very limited number of them) affected by a more or less severe form of dysphoria, a condition for which there are no known cures. They continue to be men and women, regardless of the clothes they wear, the names they give themselves, the pronouns they use, or the body modifications they go through. The sex is immutable, regardless of one's ideology or feelings. There was a time when I couldn't care less of how some of these people wanted to be perceived, and I voluntarily played along with their demands and wishes. But that time is gone, the damage has been done already, and I am no longer willing to pretend the emperor is clothed. We should have seen the writing on the wall when men affected by this condition decided to call themselves "transwomen" instead of "transmen" (as in "men who are trans"), the very first attempt to erase and appropriate our existence. This was the ultimate form of misogyny, but somehow we missed it (as women, we have been conditioned to this: in our willingness to "be kind" and "help" and "include", we have participated to our own obliteration). I am done, and I don't care if people call me TERF, I will wear it as a badge of honor.
"There are no "true trans" women or men out there"
Hmmm, I understand why you feel this way but I really don’t think this is true. I’ve spent too much time watching and reading the stories of trans people who transitioned when they were young and whose transition is very obviously genuine. People who couldn’t be less interested in using trans ideology to make women uncomfortable and who "pass" so convincingly that they’d never make any woman uncomfortable anyway.
It seems to me the there are reasonable standards for “transness” that could satisfy everybody. Even though, of course, you're right. Sex is immutable. Where sex is centrally important, in sports for example, I think there should still be separate categories. But in cases where it's not, if, for example, only trans women who had sex reassignment surgery could use women's bathrooms or changing rooms, would you still feel the same way?
I am not very sure, but I would likely feel the same. 99% of sex crimes are committed by men (males), and the number doesn't budge even factoring in the trans community. 99% sex crimes in the trans community are committed by transwomen (males, intact or not). I forget where I saw the statistics, but I saved the study done in the prison population, that clearly showed the violence pattern remained intact even after transition. I have nothing against unisex toilets as long as there are also women toilets as an alternative. BTW, you would think the trans community is made mostly of people who are genuinely suffering from gender dysphoria, and who feel some degree of alleviation by impersonating the gender they feel represents them (that's your assertion, at least). I would love that to be the case! This community is tiny, tiny, and they are really the victims of everything else that happens in their name. But, alas, it is no longer the case. Predatory or violent men (males) who do this for sexual reward (autogynephilic men and people with other countless paraphilia) have taken hold of the movement and the community, and they dominate the discourse and most organization. The shift has been very obvious in the last 2 years, and unfortunately we all suffer the consequences. The most recent developments are the claims made by paedophilic organizations that they are an oppressed minority, and they are, like transgender people, suffering from a dysphoria-type of condition that merits decriminalization. Look up the latest Pride Parade in Cologne (Germany), and the banners representing MAP ("minor attracted people", a name invented by an academic - coincidentally or not trans), and what they are asking for. I am part of a few feminist organizations, and the rape and death threats we receive daily from the TRA (plus the pictures of erect penises de rigueur, which are supposed to choke us to death) are something I have never, ever seen before. In the latest Pride parades there were always incidents and conflicts between the TRA and lesbians, not only in the US, but also in Europe (Spain, France, UK). It is beyond toxic - you are too kind, probably because you don't deal with this daily, as we do. I wish I could send you the list of the few thousand videos of men dressed as women (are they trans? are they only putting on a dress to claim they belong to this community? who knows? how can we tell the difference?) who are jerking off in women's toilets (sometimes in the sink, and there are kid's voices in the background), in women's dressing rooms, etc. (you get the spiel). These clips have been painstakingly collected by women who have been abused by "men in dresses" and now they are freaking out (who can blame them?). So, again, how can we tell who is a "true trans"????? Should we do a genital check to make sure they are not penised? See how complicated this issue is? Now imagine that the self-ID laws have been around since 2015, in Ireland. That means it is enough for a man to declare he is a woman to be considered as such (no background checks or medical reports). Any man (regardless of how he presents) can automatically access women's toilets, hospital wards, dressing rooms, women's shelters, rape crisis centers, etc., just by saying he is a woman. Women have already been fined for this. Not kidding. You think it's small, it is in fact very serious.
"99% sex crimes in the trans community are committed by transwomen (males, intact or not)."
No, that's just it, it's not "intact or not." It's intact. The research is here:
https://fairplayforwomen.com/criminality/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42221629.amp
You keep on writing about this issue as if I'm unaware of the complexities of it. Or as if I'm unaware of the stories you're mentioning. I can promise you I'm not. I've been researching this for a good four years at this point. I promise I'm paying at least as much attention as you are.
Transition doesn't mean sexual reassignment surgery. It can apply to any degree of social transition or even, in the case of prisons, no transition at all. It's policies like those that I'm arguing very strongly against. You don't need to tell me the importance of women's spaces, I've been arguing for preserving them since I first started writing about trans issues. But I'm looking for a standard of womanhood that is reasonable for trans people who are genuinely suffering from gender dysphoria.
Full sexual reassignment, as in removal of testes and penis, seems to be a reasonable standard to me. First, that's a reasonable measure for whether somebody is genuinely dysphoric. Second, without testes, male aggression decreases significantly (we see this in all animal species, of course, it's why we neuter dogs). And third, it changes the character of sexual abuse completely. Women can and very occasionally do assault other women. But the lack of a penis and male strength make it a completely different issue.
As for how to tell what degree of transition somebody has undergone, it depends on the space you're talking about.
For bathrooms, I suggest we do exactly what we do now, which is appraise people based on how masculine/feminine they look. Women already find themselves challenged in bathrooms sometimes if they look too butch. There's a fair chance you've already shared a bathroom with a trans woman. Ands it's almost certain that you've been around a trans woman and not realised. Nobody checks genitals right now to see if you can get into a bathroom, they simply look at your face and if you're feminine looking enough they don't challenge it.
For sport, I think we should be able to look at medical history. Elite athletes already undergo drug tests, why should sex tests be any different?
For legal recognition as a woman (as in having "F" on your birth certificate), I think you should have to undergo sex reassignment for reasons laid out above. No regular genital checks necessary, that's all taken care of during the application process. If you don't want that surgery, you are recognised as a trans woman, but not as a female.
If you want to access a rape crisis centre for example, they should absolutely have to verify whether you're female or male. Most crisis centres offer services for trans women, I think that's a good thing. But they should also offer services exclusively for females.
You're arguing against overly permissive regulations for trans inclusion. I am too. I can't understand how you're not seeing that. Every word I've ever written on the topic is in support of women's right to have their own spaces and of the fact that including men in female spaces just because they say "I'm a woman" is irresponsible, dangerous and deeply misogynistic. I've argued specifically against selfID in pretty much every article I've ever written. Don't mistake a desire for nuance and a consideration for people with genuine dysphoria as a failure to understand the issues.
I detect some annoyance in your tone, and I suppose the way I expressed my arguments made you think I was accusing you of stuff. I'm not. We are both arguing against over permissive regulations for trans inclusion, great! I guess I thought I could be angry and bitch about this, as someone who is not allowed to refer at herself with her own language, and who is now a subsection of her own sex category (cis and trans, right?). And of course I shared toilets with transgender women, I am even friends with a few. They are perfectly reasonable, and understand all of our concerns, including why I hate to call them women (I also commiserate when they say they hate NOT to be called women; in some ways, though, women instinctively know that once you have allowed that degree of impersonation, their complete erasure is just a matter of time - call it "surviving instinct"). They also understand how much of a slippery slope this whole issue has become, from erasing women as a sex category in law, to allowing males to dominate women's sports, to the self-ID madness. So we are on the same page, all good. Keep doing what you do.
This is horrifying.
A few decades ago there were exactly three hospitals in the USA authorized to do gender reassignment surgery and they had very strict criteria for qualification. Of course this was before a few conservative parents forbade affirmation and caused a few suicides,. leading to the overreaction and the condition we have now where anyone with Internet access and some money can get sliced and parents cannot stop it short of kidnapping.
This needs to be completely rolled back,
"This was the ultimate form of misogyny, but somehow we missed it (as women, we have been conditioned to this: in our willingness to "be kind" and "help" and "include", we have participated to our own obliteration)."
No kidding! I've written myself about how dislodging the patriarchy and misogyny between female ears will take a lot longer than the 100+ years of modern feminism. There are a lot of female psychological virtues/vulnerabilities you see on the left - like wanting to be 'liked', and be 'kind' and 'inclusive'. Those are all good things, but taken to the extreme, it allows certain types of men to victimize women. Women are often too collaborative in their own oppression, and many are unwilling to acknowledge it. As for the feminist lackeys of misogyny on the too-far left, they will likely never change because it's too intolerable to admit one was so hideously wrong about misogyny in dresses. Who would want to admit to themselves that they're collaborators to The Patriarchy (dun dun DUUUUNNN?) Without that patriarchy uprooted from their brains, they are, exactly like angry men on the right and left, too willing to throw women under the bus.
A few years ago I read a book about how deeply entrenched misogyny was in abusive men, and how it's near-impossible to dislodge it with therapy. I hope it won't prove as difficult to dislodge it in women.
Yep!!!!
These types of exchanges remind me of Robert Kegan’s Adult Development Theory, the idea that adults can make meaning from different ‘forms of mind’ (a link for those who are curious: https://www.contextprofessionals.com/en/adult-development-theory-how-can-leaders-grow-as-adults-1/).
People operating from earlier stages of Adult Development see things more in terms of black and white, think that you are either ‘with me or against me’, and their behavior is informed by reward and punishment. It is more likely for someone in the earlier stages to "Listen to Win," and to think that there is something wrong with you if you disagree with their perspective.
People operating from later stages are able to see gray and nuance, can accept that others may have a perspective that informs the whole, rely on their own value system to know wrong from right, and are more likely to “listen to learn,” which allows them to refine their mental models.
Even folks who have made it to later stages of development can ‘fall back’ to earlier stages in some contexts. ‘Fall back’ is a way that I explain the state of public discourse to myself - and how I am making sense of Stephanie’s way of engaging here.
Unfortunately, as much as I can make sense of what is happening and even why it is happening through this framework, it isn’t always clear how we amplify kindness, safety and care so that more of us can show up at our best. There is a lot of anger, fear and trauma out there, and that so often gets in our way.
Kudos to you, Steve, for wanting to cultivate a space for constructive dialogue.
"People operating from earlier stages of Adult Development see things more in terms of black and white, think that you are either ‘with me or against me’, "
It's fascinating to me how common this way of thinking has become across a whole range of social and political issues. But yes, the question of motivation is hugely important. That's what I wanted to share this, and particularly the next conversation with Stephanie.
TY Steve. You do have the patience of a saint. Looking forward to Part 2.
"That’s why I’m at such pains to remind myself, and everybody else, that people like Stephanie do not represent the trans community."
And Donald Trump doesn't represent the Republican Party. Teeth-gnashing fundamentalists don't represent American Christians. Leather-clad sadomasochists pantomiming analingus on pride parade floats didn't represent gay men.
These are true for the most determined scholars; for the great majority of people less careful, all four do indeed represent their respective tribes, making bigots' jobs so very much easier.
Most people don't know any "trans" people. There may be that one tiresome person in the office who has "their" own reserved seat in Human Resources for constantly creating conflicts over unmet identity demands. For most of us the people you're talking about are the face of "trans," with their pronoun pairs and their "queer" credentials in their online profiles. And it will not take too many 13yo girls going under the knife against parents' wishes in a paroxysm of affirmation to turn millions of votes against the party more aligned with the "woke" crowd.
"That’s why I’m at such pains to remind myself, and everybody else, that people like Stephanie do not represent the trans community."
Problem is, Steve, they do represent the "trans" community. Maybe they weren't elected to the position but in the same way that Trump Won Republicans represent their party and fundamentalst bigots represent American Christians, people like Stephanie are indeed its public face. They make all the impressions and they arouse the backlash you wrote about, affecting the innocent few who really are dysphoric.
Political progress for gays was held back for at least a generation by lewd separatists who sought and received validation by being as offensive as they could manage, and loud about it too. Yes one can be scholarly and precise enough to point out that the Stephanies don't really represent their community but, well, good luck finding anyone who has any other impression, aside from "woke" people who are every bit as obnoxious, policing everyone else.