It’s never fun giving credit to people you dislike. And I really dislike Matt Walsh. Yet in my article, Trans Activism’s Self-Inflicted Backlash, I was forced to grudgingly admit that Walsh’s then-new documentary, What Is A Woman?, had achieved something almost unimaginable in 2022. It made people from across the political spectrum agree on something. Actually, that’s too generous to Walsh’s film. What people from across the political spectrum agree on is that the word “woman” means something. It’s not a feeling, it’s not an “identity,” it’s not a preference for dresses and “girl things,” it’s a class of people who have certain needs and rights related to their biological sex.
I couldn’t make it through their arguments. It’s clear Alex is genuine in their belief but also clear that they just don’t understand my experience as a woman. It’s easy to argue in theory that gender is a social construct when we are talking about which clothes to wear or which pronouns to use. But when we’re talking about my history as a woman, or my mother’s or grandmother’s, it’s another story.
That I started to bleed at 13 is not an experience I share with trans women. Or that I am physically smaller and more vulnerable.
Even socialization can’t be ignored—for example that I was raised to present myself more softly, and the problems that creates when I want to be heard at work, or that my grandmother was denied the opportunity to go to college by her parents because her older brother chose not to.
I believe in accepting and respecting identity. But that shouldn’t require me to pretend I don’t notice difference. As we do with everyone, we can notice the ways in which we are similar and the ways in which we are different. And we should be open to surprises around that. But we don’t need to participate in this kind of self-erasure just to help someone else feel better. How it makes me feel matters too.
“It’s clear Alex is genuine in their belief but also clear that they just don’t understand my experience as a woman.”
It’s surreal how consistently this group of people, who claim to be women no less, demonstrate that they haven’t given even a second’s thought to the lives and experiences of women. It really is all flowery dresses and “girl-talk” in their minds.
And yes, I couldn’t agree more. What I’m constantly amazed by are the people who are overflowing with empathy for the needs of trans people and completely indifferent or even hostile to the needs of women. The feelings of women matter too. Especially as there are at least 100 times more women than trans women.
Exactly! "Inclusion" means acknowledgement of differences. Otherwise there would be no need to "include" somebody who already belongs to the group. But what most TRA push for is, in fact, not merely inclusion, as erasure of the host group. They want us to pretend there is absolutely no difference between women and transwomen (I hate this word, it is already hijacking womanhood - imagine if white people started calling themselves "transblack"), and that everything that's ours is theirs too. It is not only unrealistic, but also very dangerous (as Steve's examples demonstrate).
Yes. It also just feels problematic for acceptance to lie on a foundation of pretending.
And it’s not just trans activists. I feel like progressives are frequently asking us to pretend lately. It’s not a sustainable path to the progress we seek.
Hmm. It might surprise you to know that I don't hate Trump. I think he is a symptom of a much larger problem that no one on the left is willing to talk about - the complete abandonment of the little guy in national politics. I don't think the people who support him are pretending. I think they simply prioritized a guy who appears to speak their language over someone who openly scorned them (deplorables? Really? what a way to talk about the citizens of a country you wish to govern.)
When the elites get it through their head that the little guy will fight them, even if it means voting for someone like Trump, then maybe they will pay attention. I see very little evidence of any kind of elite epiphany happening. If anything, they are doubling down on their snobbery and self-righteousness. They are so convinced that their shit doesn't stink that they are digging their own graves. I want the Dems to lose and to lose hard in November.
The only way in which Trump "speaks the language" of the little guy is that he has the vocabulary of a fourth grade dropout. His contempt for working people is boundless. And unhidden.
Your post is an unfiltered recitation of right wing tropes and I will not be reading you anymore.
It's no skin off my nose if they lose, I don't live there anymore either. But I'd rather not see my mother country destroy themselves. I hear what you're saying about Trump's 'deplorables', but it's not like he's doing anything to help them, either. The Republicans have been destroying their way of life for forty years and they bend over and say, like Oliver Twist, "Please, sir, may I have some moah?" I feel the same way about Trump's long-suffering deplorables like I do the 53% of American women who voted for Trump: You voted for it, bitches! Now STFU and enjoy your disappearing safety net. And keep your legs closed until menopause.
"As we do with everyone, we can notice the ways in which we are similar and the ways in which we are different. And we should be open to surprises around that."
As well as the particulars:
"But we don’t need to participate in this kind of self-erasure just to help someone else feel better. How it makes me feel matters too."
This is very contrary the commonly-held view the "my feelings matter, but yours don't." TYTY.
"But we don’t need to participate in this kind of self-erasure just to help someone else feel better. How it makes me feel matters too."
Case in point. The same people who demand that I refer to a single person as "they" refuse to stop referring to gay people as "queer." I tell them that I find this extremely offensive and they retort that I suffer from "internalized homophobia." And go on using "queer."
In a nutshell: “…the right to express your femininity is not the right to be treated identically to a woman.” You have a brilliant way with words, sir. Thank you.
“It's not the job of the oppressed to be reasonable to their oppressors. That logic only leads in one direction, and it's six feet under.” I couldn’t make it past this line. This attitude is so common, and so non-sensical (apologies to those who think they ought to be completely exempt from making sense). Being reasonable is not something you do begrudgingly because it’s your “job,” it’s a smart move for persuading others, solving problems, and having influence over the world. Do it or don’t do it, but don’t complain when people have no idea what you’re talking about. And why bring in the threat of death here?? Unreasonable! 🤪
Sadly, hyperbole and emotional manipulation are the only tools people like this have. There’s certainly no logic. They just claim without cause that they’re “oppressed” and “hated” and then use that imaginary victimhood as justification for all their spite and entitlement.
At this point it honestly makes me laugh how quickly I’ll be accused of “hate” and “harm” as I politely point out that their insane ideology is turning reasonable people away from their support of the trans community.
The problem is that it hasn’t turned institutions and policy makers away from supporting them.
Check out policies and messaging from universities, non-profits, NGOs, community groups, etc.
Let’s remember that every major lesbian and gay organization participated in a boycott of the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival, an all woman, primarily lesbian festival that ran for 40 years, not because we didn’t allow trans women in, but because we refused to CENTER them.
Progressives have taken up this cause and decided whose feelings and rights will be prioritized and whose will be erased and ignored. The sexism is overwhelming and ironically, privileges men, no matter how they identify.
My theory on this, as a former victim, is that because they have been psychically wounded due to shunning, silencing, pretending, and incarceration as well as killed throughout history, they believe this state of victimhood gives them license to act in whatever way they wish, including dehumanizing, deplatforming, and even erasing those who don't agree with every tenet of their beliefs. Current generations "owe" them for poor behavior on the part of past ones. They insist that everyone behave in a way that ensures they will never have to be terrified or excluded ever again.
Also, now that they are allowed to be visible in the commons, they want revenge and for everyone to kiss their ass. It's not enough to simply be respected and treated the way everyone wishes to be and should be treated. They want deference and genuflection as well as reparations if they can get them (in whatever form).
“It's good to be king, and have your own way.” (in the words of the immortal Tom Petty).
I ran into this with the Pagan community years ago. I found Pagans with a 'persecution complex'. They were mostly in New England which is one of the most tolerant parts of the country regarding Paganism, I think at least partly because of the unfortunate Salem witch trials. While anti-Paganism is everywhere (mostly juiced by fundy Christians), they were a helluva lot less persecuted, I think, than the few Ohio Pagans I knew who STFU about what they did and only admitted their beliefs to those they knew wouldn't judge or truly persecute them. Yankee Pagans had to rely more on centuries-old grievances, "how I would be murdered as a witch for speaking my mind in days past," and so forth. They also (and myself as well, in my early Pagan years - baby Pagans are like just-born-again-Christians - a bit insufferable for a little while) really stoked grievances based upon the horrible tortures and methods of execution during 'The Burning Times' which also, let's remember, included other 'heretics' like Jews, Muslims, competing Christian schools of thought and atheists. Boy oh boy did we come to hate men and the Catholic Church for awhile, even if we cut the men today some slack since we've never known any who put a woman to the boot, the strappado, or the stake. Priests were a little harder to forgive just because...you know, the kids.
One of my Medium articles drew a correlation between our ancient grievances as Pagans to the ancient grievances of slavery, which are only a little less ancient (and shorter) than our own. Instead of raking old wounds constantly and pouring lemon juice on them, I argued for both antiracists and Pagans, let's focus on the present and the future, two time periods we *can* change - acknowledge the abuses of the past but don't give them any more cranial real estate than necessary. You can't accomplish much if you keep yourself in a constant state of hostility.
Exactly. Carlos Castaneda said "Our point of power is in the present." And my own: We create what we focus on. As someone who survived child abuse, my journey has been to re-empower myself and move away from victimhood. It's hard, because rage, you know? Not fair, I deserve justice, I'm worth more, my perps should pay. I get it.
If justice is your quest, cool (the royal you, not you you - lol). Knock yourself out. But, I'd rather create really cool sculptural lamps and inject some beauty and colored light into the world. I'd rather be a creature on the planet and have creature experiences. I'd rather love and be a people and hang with other peoples. If I can help people along the way, I definitely will. My nod to the commons. But you are correct - no point in relitigating the past. It's done. All we have is now.
Totally. The weird part is, people reasonably (!) do not wish to be reduced to nothing more than an avatar for some monolithic bloc defined by their race, gender identity, etc- they want to be seen as the individuals they are! Yet many have no qualms claiming the victimhood of others, even some long passed or of no common heritage, as their own, based on those shared but relatively superficial characteristics… like, yes, people who have been victims deserve special allowances compared to those who have victimized them, but the arrangement does not transfer across people and generations…? But you’re right, it feels good. I wrote about my own example on my blog- I’d rather identify with my great x4-grandfather who was an Irish rebel against British oppressors than my great x4-grandfather who owned slaves in the Antebellum south. But the fact is, they’re both my direct ancestors so I have equal claim to both of their accomplishments and faults, but not really much of either- I’m ultimately my own person.
I’m flat out offended by Alex. What in the hell are they proposing? Women are - women. You don’t get to redefine and take away rights because you want to play gender games. Turn the tables, shall we? There are no men if trans men aren’t accepted in mens sports mens locker rooms mens prisons... don’t make me laugh. Never gonna happen. The ridiculous circular logic and citing of extremely rare cases (eg intersex) just reeks of excuses. You don’t want women to exist - you never did, Alex. You just want more to control. Well just kiss off dude. The backlash is swelling and you brought it on yourself.
“Turn the tables, shall we? There are no men if trans men aren’t accepted in mens sports mens locker rooms mens prisons”
This is where it gets really trippy. Bring this up to the activists and of course they believe that trans men should be housed in prisons with women because trans men are female and would be vulnerable in men’s prisons.
All of a sudden, sex matters again.
Basically the trans movement sees women and particularly women’s spaces as a convenient escape route for anybody who doesn’t want to deal with men. I’ve seen numerous pictures of bathrooms recently that were simply “men” and “everybody else.” *Actual* women are an afterthought to people like Alex.
That’s an interesting perspective, that of a ‘convenient escape route for those who don’t want to deal with men’. I hadn’t thought of it that way and appreciate the insight. I had viewed it as flat-out bullying and culture war stuff that was attempting to essentially erase the female - once again, for the benefit of the male. Huge step backward in my view.
Rather than bicker over bathroom stalls just create a trans one (or sports team, or prison, or whatever). Fundraise for it. Buy your own spaces, don’t take someone else’s hard-fought ones.
And I wish these people would stop twisting language in negative ways (‘chest feeder’) in absolute denial of the XY reality they will live with no matter what pronoun they insist on. It’s hurtful, unkind, and does nothing to build bridges or support.
You can rebel by sticking to the original definitions. Like, white supremacy for me is strictly people who consciously believe white people are superior to darker-skinned ones and think they should rule the world as a result. A woman is an adult human female and a transwoman is a different kind of woman - one who has appropriated womanhood for a variety of reasons.
BTW, there are other unhealthy reasons for switching trans that young people (mostly) have expressed - in addition to not wanting to deal with misogyny, some may be trying to avoid being attractive to men if they've dealt with sexual abuse. Other gay kids have expressed a desire not to live in a homophobic world.
I can't imagine anything less *authentic* - which young people like to go on about - and more anti-feminist, or pro-homophobic, than changing one's self rather than challenging the toxic beliefs that contribute to a misogyny and homophobic society (both of which are rooted in toxic masculinity).
Sometimes even doo-doo heads are right ;0) I don't know if I am in unusually good cheer but this one had me chuckling.
With apologies to Syndrome of The Incredibles, ~If everyone is a woman, no one will be.~ When someone on Medium said to me, "𝘈 𝘛𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴-𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯 <𝘗𝘌𝘙𝘐𝘖𝘋>!", I knew that they had jumped the shark and would never find acceptance of that. Like you, I'm not saying the deserve the push back they are getting, but it is certainly to be expected.
We all await your article where "harm" is defined.
Thank You, Steve. Long slog. Dunno who said (in effect) You can't reason with a person who doesn't subscribe to using reason themselves. (“You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place.") ~ Jonathan Swift
That's pretty much all the acolytes of the Woke Religion, AFAIK. (As Far As I Know.)
Excellent as usual, Steve. Some very good talking points. You demonstrated incredible patience and restraint in your replies to Alex.
"Could it have anything to do with the attempt, not replicated in any other culture, to erase the meaning of woman completely? Not just the “identity” but the material reality? "
Exactly this. Trans activists appear to want to ignore or erase the very real biological and social differences between women and trans women.
I do still find it very odd that I never hear the question "what is a man?" in the context of discussions about gender identity.
Great examples of issues with disregarding biology to appease demands from Trans activists to be treated special. There are reasons that the term 'sex' is used on legal and medical forms (hint: it is not about gender expression, but biology).
Yet another example of how much this absurdity has taken over, I ran across this today on a County Health site regarding Monkey Pox vaccines: "Monkeypox vaccine is currently available to: Any sexually active man, or transgender or nonbinary person, who has sex with men"
Maybe it is just me, but I could not figure out why being nonbinary or transgender would be a special consideration. Hmm...I have sex with men, but I am not nonbinary (though my gender expression is definitely not very feminine), so does that mean I can't get the vaccine? What if I feel more masculine today... or wait, do I need to feel more feminine.... I am so confused. ;-)
“Maybe it is just me, but I could not figure out why being nonbinary or transgender would be a special consideration”
Me neither. Worse, it makes a medical question that might affect somebody’s healthcare decisions needlessly unclear.
Why not just say “anybody who has sex with men”? If I have to run through a whole algorithm in my head to figure out whether I need the vaccine, maybe I would just give up when I needed it. Healthcare related questions should be as clear and straightforward as possible.
There’s a good reason we aren’t asking “what is a man?” though. Actually there are two.
1. Redefining “msn” makes no significant difference to men’s lives. We already have to deal with other men in our spaces.
2. Trans men aren’t demanding that we change our understanding of our sex class because they are almost unfailingly less aggressive, entitled and predatory than trans women. Whatever could explain that…🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
At a urologist's office the questionnaire did not have the expected "M or F", it had "Your preferred gender identity." Puzzling. But then the physician and physician's assistants have no difficulty deciding if you need to bend over for the finger or lie down and put your feet in the stirrups during the exam. My curiosity did not get the best of me, and I didn't ask about the question.
It may sound like we're all speaking English, but are we sure that we agree on what "English" is? I fear there's more than just inconsistency here: I perceive serious defects in cognition, as seems to happen with most conversations on this subject. It's like watching a school of fish darting this way, then that. It's painful to watch. The solution: agree on a dictionary that all parties find acceptable. Then, define the terms of the debate. So much better than trying to converse with the intellectual equivalent of a whack-a-mole.
Yeah, it’s brainwashing. It’s like talking to any true believer. They twist themselves in knots because they’re determined to defend a particular lie.
As soon as you decide that there’s no difference between trans women and women, you have to redefine all these other words and concepts to maintain the fiction.
Where community fails. So true. I feel strongly that parts of social media are a sort of failed community. Any place where immaturity, shortsightedness, and viciousness rule is not a healthy community.
One of my fave things about substack (and it's mostly thoughtful, adult commenters) is how we spark each other into greater insights and awareness. Love it.
It's confusing enough that a "trans woman" is a man and a "trans man" is a woman. Yet to point this out on many a forum guarantees expulsion. I can't wait for this fad to die out but I would've expected it to collapse under the weight of its absurdity long ago.
This whole argument keeps coming down to language politics and the conflation of Sex and Gender because the same words can be used as classifiers for both. Imagine if the very first DMV license application had two classification question:
Sex: Male Female
Gender: Masculine Feminine _____
In such a world, where Masculine was the genderized term and Male was the Sex term, and blank was commonly filled out, would we be having this conversation?
Yep, you’re right. The problem is, the language games are a deliberate part of the strategy. As I’ve pointed out a few times, it used to be trans people who pointed out that sex and gender are different. And this was useful in helping people wrap their heads around gender dysphoria.
But now, the new wave of trans activists deliberately try to gloss over this difference by using male/man and female/woman interchangeably. Because doing so papers over some of the more glaring flaws in the ideology.
If there was a genuine attempt to use language honestly we wouldn’t struggle with these terms.
What bothers me most about this "trans" phenomenon is the breadth of its acceptance. Let's be candid; a man who puts on a dress, even a man who has himself castrated and goes on hormones, remains a man. He was bathed in androgen in the womb, he grew up with male bones and musculature. If he wants to express himself as female that's his business but it's not mine nor anyone else's.
You've expressed the absurdities here very well and I don't need to embellish them.
But the acceptance is so broad that people are being fired from jobs for refusing to use bad grammar; children are being mutilated by unscrupulous surgeons; millions are laying claim to being "trans" who would never qualify as such by a psychologist, yet nobody dares push back.
A few days ago I was updating my profile on a job search board. There was a new section: "Pronouns." I left it blank; fortunately it was not flagged as required when I went to the next page.
Amazon is doing a series based on Lord of the Rings update with contemporary values; there are black actors and even "non-binary" Elves. Nobody seems to care that there was no Africa in the world of Middle Earth; I suppose if Amazon ever does a series on the Civil War they will have General Lee played by Idris Elba and anyone who objects will be called "racist."
It doesn't sound as though Alex read your article at all.
Dunno if you saw "28 Weeks Later" but he has a commanding presence in a uniform.
I really like Tolkien's mythology, I am not a fantasy reader otherwise at all but I know the story behind LotR really well, and I am really irrritated by Amazon turning it into another piece of Happy World entertainment. The "inclusiveness" thing has escaped all rational bounds and become unchecked compulsion.
The races of Middle Earth were Elves, Dwarves, Maiar, and Men, not Europeans and Africans. Yet any appeal to faithfully portraying Tolkien's richly detailed world is answered with charges of racism if not fascism.
I get this. But, honestly, I didn't really notice that much. All of the characters just seemed like "people" to me. It's not as good as the Peter Jackson LOTR, but I like it better than "The Hobbit." The Disney-fication of that story was a huge turnoff. We rewatch LOTR at least once per year. But, we never watch "The Hobbit" trilogy.
I haven't seen 28 weeks later. I'll put it on my list. Re: LOTR: although I find it irritating too, I have to step back and think, this over-correction in representation in media is inevitable and necessary and we will balance out again eventually. I hope.
Being mean on the internet? I don't care. Mutilating and sterilizing children? I care a LOT.
So this 66-year-old lifelong Democrat is now voting straight Republican, because the Republican Party is the only organized opposition to these heinous and barbaric practices.
I hate who I have to ally with on this, but IMO this is the most imporant issue in the US today. Nothing else matters more.
That is an extreme over-reaction. A Republican ascendancy all but assures the extinction of life on earth, including, eventually, us.
I find myself extremely discomfited to be in agreement with any conservative position, particularly one so on the leading edge as this "trans" shit. I would favor a federal law that prohibited any medical intervention in the name of gender for anyone short of full adulthood who decides to be "trans" or whatever; once they're adults they can screw up their bodies all they like.
But voting for crazy people, umm, no. BAD idea.
Whenever on a social network I see public figures like Elizabeth Warren with pronouns in their profiles I write and ask them to remove them because it's undignified. Anyone with "they/them" I block.
Your first 2 sentences are just slightly reactionary, don't you think? Just because you disagree with Republicans is no excuse to dehumanize them and attribute to them the traits of pure evil. Dehumanizing the opposition may feel good. But, it's not solution to keeping the country solvent. And politics often requires horsetrading and unpleasant alliances.
I would have died just as happily to secure the rights of the opposition as I would those I agree with while serving in the military. In fact, I would do so happily today if the need was required.
Lunatics and assholes thrive in both of those parties. I could no longer tell you how many times I've written in "No acceptable candidate" in protest of the choices we are given. The last Presidential election was a case in point. Megalomania vs. Dementia for "the leader of the free world." The rulers behind the curtain who really run things are laughing their ass of as the tell us to f ourselves while giving us absurd choices.
Biden demented? I've seen no signs of that. His mind does not wander.
My uncle died of Alzheimer's years before my father, his brother, and the last time my father visited him he asked if they were related.
My father was lucid even after his eyes had closed for the last time. Not everyone goes senile. Though I find myself worrying every time I have to grope for a word I haven't used in a while.
My maternal grandfather and my mother had Alzheimer's. About a year before my mother's passing when she lived with me, she said things like, "When I met you..." and my wife's Thai language TV had her asking about us being in China and how long would it take to get back to America. It is a heartbreaking disorder when it is your loved one, but in the POTUS it should rightfully be considered terrifying. In retirement I do things to exercise my brain in an effort to not go down that path.
I'm not a doctor but I've lived with the demented. I see what looks like it. Biden should be given a test for cognizance by a competent medical expert to put the question to rest. Actually, I think that should be a standard practice for all of our elderly politicians.
These are all over the place, except in the US press.
I don't mean for this to turn into a partisan political debate, but I do see what appears to me in my non-medical point of view a very disturbing and highly visible behavior on his part. I'd be equally troubled if it was a member of any political tribe.
I'm unfamiliar with that network. It would be ridiculous to insist that a man of Biden's age doesn't have his wandering moments but he is orders of magnitude sharper than the man he defeated in 2020.
Exactly. It could be a matter of ego, but I think I have fewer colossal wandering moments that either of them, but I'm not a sharp as I once was and am also unfit for the office of POTUS. That leads to my disdain for the logic of voting where, "He's not as bad as that other guy" as if that makes the less bad guy good.
I understand that best is the enemy of better, but I'd like to see all of the choices be better so we wouldn't have to make such dreadful choices and hurry home to take a shower after voting.
Oh, I think broad psychological testing should be standard practice for all political candidates above the level of water commissioner, irrespective of age. That would spare us brain-damaged people like Herschel Walker and psychotics like Mastroianni. It would have kept Trump out of office.
I am not saying you're echoing right wing trolling about Biden but the fact that we get so much of it from Trump supporters when Trump is very clearly in advanced deterioration gets kind of irksome. Aside from speaking at a fourth grade level he shows clear signs of dementia and a lot of his word choices are very peculiar. What is a "perfect phone call?"
I don't watch television but I have seen a lot of short videos of Biden speaking and never seen anything that raised this alarm; he tripped a few times getting onto a plane but that's not likely to be for cognitive reasons.
Thinking more about this. As important as scientific understanding is now, and not only with Global Broiling, it is no longer acceptable to have scientifically illiterate people holding the reins of power. Everyone in both houses of Congress needs a basic understanding of the physical sciences and also needs to have a stranglehold on basic arithmetic; anyone who believes that cutting taxes increases revenue is unfit to rule on matters of finance.
This would mean having a curriculum for prospective candidates which those already educated could test out of, and it would spare us the daily emarrassment of Palins and Boeberts.
It doesn't matter if the voters think spaceships have steering wheels. There should be no option to vote for people who think they do.
Yeah, Democrats point to the flaws of Republicans and Republicans point to the flaws of Democrats. That is to be expected and we could replace the Ds & Rs with any opposing tribes.
The thing is, I am always disappointed when intelligent people that I respect decide something must be false because someone they don't like said it. Even "𝘥𝘰𝘰 𝘥𝘰𝘰 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘴" can speak truth. If something is false just because Trump said it, I want him to mention everything that is genuinely wrong with me to fix them. He could heal the sick and raise the dead like Jesus Christ. I've got a MAGA friend who often ends conversations with "We can agree to disagree" when I point out that he shouldn't assume that everything that "Dems and RINOs" say is a lie just because he doesn't like them.
It is the reason that I 𝘁𝗿𝘆 to avoid the extremes of political partisanship, but as soon as anyone mentions something about a tribe it is presumed to come from political partisanship. I admit that on 3rd rail issues the pull to partisanship is difficult to resist so I understand it in others. I'm as disappointed in myself as I am in others when I see it, and also when I wrongly assume it about others.
"A Republican ascendancy all but assures the extinction of life on earth, including, eventually, us" is the extreme overreaction here.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Democrats are not serious about climate change. Serious is something that would actually significantly reduce fossil fuel consumption, like say a $5/gallon gas tax. Not happening.
And I submit that people who deny the sex binary are far greater science deniers than those who question complex climate modeling. And also much crazier.
Did I say the Democrats are vigorous in desire to address "climate change?" No, I didn't. But the Republicans are adamant about doing the worst they possibly can, defiantly increasing the burning of fossil fuels.
The gender/sex deniers don't wipe out wildlife. I think the "trans/non-binary" thing is the stupidest shit I've seen in my life but it's just foolishness.
I'm with you. I also hate the mésalliance but am leaning right when I vote (even though I am insanely pro reproductive rights - imagine the battle in MY head over that). But, it has to be done.
Alex: The truth is that cisgender people have not had to consider how their gender, and really most identities are a social construct.
Alex needs to immerse him/herself in some feminist herstory. Trans women routinely call lesbians “Cis women,” as if lesbians and feminists have not been writing about, challenging, and violating gender and gender expression norms for decades prior to the trans movement.
Coincidentally (or not), lesbians and feminists are also the groups that get targeted by trans activists for the most online and in-person abuse.
I will throw this out to you, Steve, since I know we disagree on it. You argue passionately for the right for people to gender-switch; I take it a step further and argue that race-switching is therefore okay too, and my genuine support for it are similar to that for gender-switching: It's a good way to see how the other side lives. The best argument *against* transracialism right now is that black people 'can't do it'; I argue they can (Exhibit A, Michael Jackson, who could have pulled it off if he'd altered his hair a bit more and also wasn't Michael Jackson), but that it's more difficult and maybe even more dangerous. So let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it's now become as easy and equivalently safe for blacks and others to race-switch as for genders. How is that any different? If anything, it'll involve a lot less medical intervention than transgender surgery.
Why would I have a problem with this? Adults can have whatever cosmetic surgery they want (although no, Michael Jackson definitely didn’t “pull off” being white😅).
The issue would just be whether we lose track of whether they are or aren’t black. Similarly, I take no issue with a guy wanting to get breast implants or wear makeup. I take issue when society loses track of whether he is or isn’t a woman.
Gender dysphoria is a rare but real condition. And denying people, male AND female, the treatment they need to alleviate that condition is needlessly cruel. If “race dysphoria” were a thing, I’d feel the same way.
Michael Jackson didn't go all-out trying to be white, but I think he made a real play for it. Quincy Jones said he supposedly took vitiligo medication for *lightening* skin rather than darkening it which is what white vitiligo sufferers take. His skin really did look pretty uniform, but I imagine the alleged chemical peels had something to do with it.
I'm quite sure you indicated several months back you didn't think race-switching was a good idea, back when I said I'd like to read a book called "White Like Me," in which hopefully it elucidated whether becoming white solved all of someone's problems. But don't ask me to dig it up because it was awhile back.
'Race dysphoria' isn't a real condition like gender dysphoria is, it's socially induced, but I think you could make that case about a fair chunk of transgenders. But does it matter? Who cares why someone switches anything? I think it makes for an interesting experiment. I think if Buck Angel is okay, so is Rachel Dolezal. She may have come to it through having black adopted brothers, and she seems to have a lot of personal problems herself. But so what? She's been described by one guy as 'understanding the nuances of black experience' so maybe black culture (or any culture) can be 'learned'. Is it so terrible that she lives as she does, without having grown up black herself?
"I'm quite sure you indicated several months back you didn't think race-switching was a good idea,"
Absolutely. I don't remember that conversation but I certainly *don't* think race switching is a good idea. I don't think gender switching is a good idea either. I think it would be much better if we could help people to be happy and accept themselves in a way that didn't require life-long medicalisation and surgery.
But I would argue for the right to do all kinds of things that I personally don't think are good ideas. I think the issue for most people with Rachel Dolezal was the dishonesty (I just found it bemusing). It's not the efforts she made to look how she looked, it's the lie that this made her black.
Similarly, I think for some (most?) people who have gender dysphoria, medical transition really is their best option. So I think they should have that option. Just like being black, it's not the efforts these people make to look female, it's the dishonesty about whether they *are* female.
One reason (there are a few) why people feel differently about Buck Angel and Rachel Dolezal is that Buck doesn't try to lie about being female.
There is no question that for the gender dysphoric to transition is an enormous relief from a lifetime of despair, depression, and agony. But.
I am convinced that the genuinely dysphoric are not only a minority of the "trans" community, but a small minority.
The insistence by activists on immediate transition is irresponsible and their claim that puberty is too late is simply not going to fly. This is creating the backlash you predicted a few months ago and it is potent. Children in their early teens are not ready to make decisions like that.
Okay, I see your point. She *is* dishonest, and she has quite a checkered history of dishonesty - she got in trouble for welfare fraud way back. She's not someone I would want to be friends with, because of the pre-existing dishonesty, not because she was born white. If I knew someone like her (without the dishonesty) I think I would try to treat her as black but with the understanding that under the fake skin and whatever else she did to 'black herself up', it's still in my awareness that she's a white woman and I might sometimes talk to her that way, expecting her to understand. Which is how I would be with a transwoman I was friends with, there's still this tacit understanding that she is NOT the same as myself and I won't pretend otherwise if the circumstances warrant.
Jenny-now-Ian-Descenzio on Medium is like Buck Angel (one of his role models). He doesn't pretend he's not biologically a woman which is why I can so easily accept him (even though I had a private feeling of, 'Et tu, Brute?' when he first announced this. Jenny was often fairly aggressive and assertive before the switch so I can sort of see it, but I also wonder whether he is a 'bridge brain', someone who embodies a less sex-based way of thinking than others. I see this with a lot of people - some of it seems to be environment, culture, the way they were raised, but I think there may be a bit different brain wiring as well. (Speculation on my part).
Interestingly, when I pulled out the #2 article that Medium took down for 'hate speech' (despite being chosen for distribution for about ten days) and repurposed it for Vocal and my blog, I found a quote from a black social commentator and scholar, Dr. Boyce Watkins, back in 2015 when Dolezal was first 'outed'. He said, “She’s deeply invested in the black community. That’s really what bothers me about it; I looked at her track record, and she’s really into this. She’s teaching about black culture, she understands the subtleties of the black experience, she’s raising black children, she married a black man, she’s going to work for the NAACP. She does more for the black community than 99 percent of the black people that I know. And I know a lot of hard-working black people. So I can’t fault her for this, I just can’t.”
YMMV, but she's not just farting around. She's as serious as an auto accident about what she's done, which I can't say about a lot of other 'transracialists' or a lot of gender-switchers today, most of whom, as Dave Chappelle suggested, are doing more 'gender blackface' than being genuine and committed opposite sex members.
For what it’s worth, as an outsider to the black community, I see the Rachel Dolezal case differently. I read that her kids were black. And her friends. It felt like she wanted acceptance as an insider in the black community. I don’t condone what she did, but I understand it in the same way I understand a trans woman wanting to pass.
I think I understand why people are upset. It feels like it ignores the history of the black experience, in the same way that Alex ignored my history as a woman. But something about the force with which people came down on Rachel didn’t sit right. Maybe I am not as familiar with the case as others are, and also I am not black.
The arguments lefty blacks make against transracialism are *exactly* the same arguments they condone in regard to gender-switching, which is where the hypocrisy in the movement lies. They're right when they claim that 'race is just a social construct'. Well, there are clearly racial differences since, if I could still make babies, I could never produce a black or Chinese one unless I was impregnated by a black or Chinese guy. Racial differences are just surficial and reflect the way our bodies adapted to different climates and environments as we moved out of Africa. It's a lot more complicated with gender switching which is *not* a 'social construct' as they claim and involves a lot more medical effort for a true transition than race-switching would be. And it doesn't change what's between the ears, which grew up male/female.
I couldn’t make it through their arguments. It’s clear Alex is genuine in their belief but also clear that they just don’t understand my experience as a woman. It’s easy to argue in theory that gender is a social construct when we are talking about which clothes to wear or which pronouns to use. But when we’re talking about my history as a woman, or my mother’s or grandmother’s, it’s another story.
That I started to bleed at 13 is not an experience I share with trans women. Or that I am physically smaller and more vulnerable.
Even socialization can’t be ignored—for example that I was raised to present myself more softly, and the problems that creates when I want to be heard at work, or that my grandmother was denied the opportunity to go to college by her parents because her older brother chose not to.
I believe in accepting and respecting identity. But that shouldn’t require me to pretend I don’t notice difference. As we do with everyone, we can notice the ways in which we are similar and the ways in which we are different. And we should be open to surprises around that. But we don’t need to participate in this kind of self-erasure just to help someone else feel better. How it makes me feel matters too.
“It’s clear Alex is genuine in their belief but also clear that they just don’t understand my experience as a woman.”
It’s surreal how consistently this group of people, who claim to be women no less, demonstrate that they haven’t given even a second’s thought to the lives and experiences of women. It really is all flowery dresses and “girl-talk” in their minds.
And yes, I couldn’t agree more. What I’m constantly amazed by are the people who are overflowing with empathy for the needs of trans people and completely indifferent or even hostile to the needs of women. The feelings of women matter too. Especially as there are at least 100 times more women than trans women.
Exactly! "Inclusion" means acknowledgement of differences. Otherwise there would be no need to "include" somebody who already belongs to the group. But what most TRA push for is, in fact, not merely inclusion, as erasure of the host group. They want us to pretend there is absolutely no difference between women and transwomen (I hate this word, it is already hijacking womanhood - imagine if white people started calling themselves "transblack"), and that everything that's ours is theirs too. It is not only unrealistic, but also very dangerous (as Steve's examples demonstrate).
Yes. It also just feels problematic for acceptance to lie on a foundation of pretending.
And it’s not just trans activists. I feel like progressives are frequently asking us to pretend lately. It’s not a sustainable path to the progress we seek.
Pretending. What a powerful way to encapsulate the dynamic. And that's why I hate it. I hate pretending. Thanks for the insight.
Rather an awful lot like other side has to pretend an awful lot about an awful leader they support.
Hmm. It might surprise you to know that I don't hate Trump. I think he is a symptom of a much larger problem that no one on the left is willing to talk about - the complete abandonment of the little guy in national politics. I don't think the people who support him are pretending. I think they simply prioritized a guy who appears to speak their language over someone who openly scorned them (deplorables? Really? what a way to talk about the citizens of a country you wish to govern.)
When the elites get it through their head that the little guy will fight them, even if it means voting for someone like Trump, then maybe they will pay attention. I see very little evidence of any kind of elite epiphany happening. If anything, they are doubling down on their snobbery and self-righteousness. They are so convinced that their shit doesn't stink that they are digging their own graves. I want the Dems to lose and to lose hard in November.
The only way in which Trump "speaks the language" of the little guy is that he has the vocabulary of a fourth grade dropout. His contempt for working people is boundless. And unhidden.
Your post is an unfiltered recitation of right wing tropes and I will not be reading you anymore.
It's no skin off my nose if they lose, I don't live there anymore either. But I'd rather not see my mother country destroy themselves. I hear what you're saying about Trump's 'deplorables', but it's not like he's doing anything to help them, either. The Republicans have been destroying their way of life for forty years and they bend over and say, like Oliver Twist, "Please, sir, may I have some moah?" I feel the same way about Trump's long-suffering deplorables like I do the 53% of American women who voted for Trump: You voted for it, bitches! Now STFU and enjoy your disappearing safety net. And keep your legs closed until menopause.
Thank You. I agree with You and Wen Jin. Classic:
"As we do with everyone, we can notice the ways in which we are similar and the ways in which we are different. And we should be open to surprises around that."
As well as the particulars:
"But we don’t need to participate in this kind of self-erasure just to help someone else feel better. How it makes me feel matters too."
This is very contrary the commonly-held view the "my feelings matter, but yours don't." TYTY.
"But we don’t need to participate in this kind of self-erasure just to help someone else feel better. How it makes me feel matters too."
Case in point. The same people who demand that I refer to a single person as "they" refuse to stop referring to gay people as "queer." I tell them that I find this extremely offensive and they retort that I suffer from "internalized homophobia." And go on using "queer."
Figures, doesn't it.
In a nutshell: “…the right to express your femininity is not the right to be treated identically to a woman.” You have a brilliant way with words, sir. Thank you.
“It's not the job of the oppressed to be reasonable to their oppressors. That logic only leads in one direction, and it's six feet under.” I couldn’t make it past this line. This attitude is so common, and so non-sensical (apologies to those who think they ought to be completely exempt from making sense). Being reasonable is not something you do begrudgingly because it’s your “job,” it’s a smart move for persuading others, solving problems, and having influence over the world. Do it or don’t do it, but don’t complain when people have no idea what you’re talking about. And why bring in the threat of death here?? Unreasonable! 🤪
Sadly, hyperbole and emotional manipulation are the only tools people like this have. There’s certainly no logic. They just claim without cause that they’re “oppressed” and “hated” and then use that imaginary victimhood as justification for all their spite and entitlement.
At this point it honestly makes me laugh how quickly I’ll be accused of “hate” and “harm” as I politely point out that their insane ideology is turning reasonable people away from their support of the trans community.
The problem is that it hasn’t turned institutions and policy makers away from supporting them.
Check out policies and messaging from universities, non-profits, NGOs, community groups, etc.
Let’s remember that every major lesbian and gay organization participated in a boycott of the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival, an all woman, primarily lesbian festival that ran for 40 years, not because we didn’t allow trans women in, but because we refused to CENTER them.
Progressives have taken up this cause and decided whose feelings and rights will be prioritized and whose will be erased and ignored. The sexism is overwhelming and ironically, privileges men, no matter how they identify.
My theory on this, as a former victim, is that because they have been psychically wounded due to shunning, silencing, pretending, and incarceration as well as killed throughout history, they believe this state of victimhood gives them license to act in whatever way they wish, including dehumanizing, deplatforming, and even erasing those who don't agree with every tenet of their beliefs. Current generations "owe" them for poor behavior on the part of past ones. They insist that everyone behave in a way that ensures they will never have to be terrified or excluded ever again.
Also, now that they are allowed to be visible in the commons, they want revenge and for everyone to kiss their ass. It's not enough to simply be respected and treated the way everyone wishes to be and should be treated. They want deference and genuflection as well as reparations if they can get them (in whatever form).
“It's good to be king, and have your own way.” (in the words of the immortal Tom Petty).
I ran into this with the Pagan community years ago. I found Pagans with a 'persecution complex'. They were mostly in New England which is one of the most tolerant parts of the country regarding Paganism, I think at least partly because of the unfortunate Salem witch trials. While anti-Paganism is everywhere (mostly juiced by fundy Christians), they were a helluva lot less persecuted, I think, than the few Ohio Pagans I knew who STFU about what they did and only admitted their beliefs to those they knew wouldn't judge or truly persecute them. Yankee Pagans had to rely more on centuries-old grievances, "how I would be murdered as a witch for speaking my mind in days past," and so forth. They also (and myself as well, in my early Pagan years - baby Pagans are like just-born-again-Christians - a bit insufferable for a little while) really stoked grievances based upon the horrible tortures and methods of execution during 'The Burning Times' which also, let's remember, included other 'heretics' like Jews, Muslims, competing Christian schools of thought and atheists. Boy oh boy did we come to hate men and the Catholic Church for awhile, even if we cut the men today some slack since we've never known any who put a woman to the boot, the strappado, or the stake. Priests were a little harder to forgive just because...you know, the kids.
One of my Medium articles drew a correlation between our ancient grievances as Pagans to the ancient grievances of slavery, which are only a little less ancient (and shorter) than our own. Instead of raking old wounds constantly and pouring lemon juice on them, I argued for both antiracists and Pagans, let's focus on the present and the future, two time periods we *can* change - acknowledge the abuses of the past but don't give them any more cranial real estate than necessary. You can't accomplish much if you keep yourself in a constant state of hostility.
Exactly. Carlos Castaneda said "Our point of power is in the present." And my own: We create what we focus on. As someone who survived child abuse, my journey has been to re-empower myself and move away from victimhood. It's hard, because rage, you know? Not fair, I deserve justice, I'm worth more, my perps should pay. I get it.
If justice is your quest, cool (the royal you, not you you - lol). Knock yourself out. But, I'd rather create really cool sculptural lamps and inject some beauty and colored light into the world. I'd rather be a creature on the planet and have creature experiences. I'd rather love and be a people and hang with other peoples. If I can help people along the way, I definitely will. My nod to the commons. But you are correct - no point in relitigating the past. It's done. All we have is now.
Totally. The weird part is, people reasonably (!) do not wish to be reduced to nothing more than an avatar for some monolithic bloc defined by their race, gender identity, etc- they want to be seen as the individuals they are! Yet many have no qualms claiming the victimhood of others, even some long passed or of no common heritage, as their own, based on those shared but relatively superficial characteristics… like, yes, people who have been victims deserve special allowances compared to those who have victimized them, but the arrangement does not transfer across people and generations…? But you’re right, it feels good. I wrote about my own example on my blog- I’d rather identify with my great x4-grandfather who was an Irish rebel against British oppressors than my great x4-grandfather who owned slaves in the Antebellum south. But the fact is, they’re both my direct ancestors so I have equal claim to both of their accomplishments and faults, but not really much of either- I’m ultimately my own person.
I’m flat out offended by Alex. What in the hell are they proposing? Women are - women. You don’t get to redefine and take away rights because you want to play gender games. Turn the tables, shall we? There are no men if trans men aren’t accepted in mens sports mens locker rooms mens prisons... don’t make me laugh. Never gonna happen. The ridiculous circular logic and citing of extremely rare cases (eg intersex) just reeks of excuses. You don’t want women to exist - you never did, Alex. You just want more to control. Well just kiss off dude. The backlash is swelling and you brought it on yourself.
“Turn the tables, shall we? There are no men if trans men aren’t accepted in mens sports mens locker rooms mens prisons”
This is where it gets really trippy. Bring this up to the activists and of course they believe that trans men should be housed in prisons with women because trans men are female and would be vulnerable in men’s prisons.
All of a sudden, sex matters again.
Basically the trans movement sees women and particularly women’s spaces as a convenient escape route for anybody who doesn’t want to deal with men. I’ve seen numerous pictures of bathrooms recently that were simply “men” and “everybody else.” *Actual* women are an afterthought to people like Alex.
That’s an interesting perspective, that of a ‘convenient escape route for those who don’t want to deal with men’. I hadn’t thought of it that way and appreciate the insight. I had viewed it as flat-out bullying and culture war stuff that was attempting to essentially erase the female - once again, for the benefit of the male. Huge step backward in my view.
Rather than bicker over bathroom stalls just create a trans one (or sports team, or prison, or whatever). Fundraise for it. Buy your own spaces, don’t take someone else’s hard-fought ones.
And I wish these people would stop twisting language in negative ways (‘chest feeder’) in absolute denial of the XY reality they will live with no matter what pronoun they insist on. It’s hurtful, unkind, and does nothing to build bridges or support.
You can rebel by sticking to the original definitions. Like, white supremacy for me is strictly people who consciously believe white people are superior to darker-skinned ones and think they should rule the world as a result. A woman is an adult human female and a transwoman is a different kind of woman - one who has appropriated womanhood for a variety of reasons.
BTW, there are other unhealthy reasons for switching trans that young people (mostly) have expressed - in addition to not wanting to deal with misogyny, some may be trying to avoid being attractive to men if they've dealt with sexual abuse. Other gay kids have expressed a desire not to live in a homophobic world.
I can't imagine anything less *authentic* - which young people like to go on about - and more anti-feminist, or pro-homophobic, than changing one's self rather than challenging the toxic beliefs that contribute to a misogyny and homophobic society (both of which are rooted in toxic masculinity).
Sometimes even doo-doo heads are right ;0) I don't know if I am in unusually good cheer but this one had me chuckling.
With apologies to Syndrome of The Incredibles, ~If everyone is a woman, no one will be.~ When someone on Medium said to me, "𝘈 𝘛𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴-𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯 <𝘗𝘌𝘙𝘐𝘖𝘋>!", I knew that they had jumped the shark and would never find acceptance of that. Like you, I'm not saying the deserve the push back they are getting, but it is certainly to be expected.
We all await your article where "harm" is defined.
“We all await your article where "harm" is defined.”
Oh that’s easy! “Harm” is when you make a point that I can’t refute but don’t find affirming.
Thank You, Steve. Long slog. Dunno who said (in effect) You can't reason with a person who doesn't subscribe to using reason themselves. (“You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place.") ~ Jonathan Swift
That's pretty much all the acolytes of the Woke Religion, AFAIK. (As Far As I Know.)
Excellent as usual, Steve. Some very good talking points. You demonstrated incredible patience and restraint in your replies to Alex.
"Could it have anything to do with the attempt, not replicated in any other culture, to erase the meaning of woman completely? Not just the “identity” but the material reality? "
Exactly this. Trans activists appear to want to ignore or erase the very real biological and social differences between women and trans women.
I do still find it very odd that I never hear the question "what is a man?" in the context of discussions about gender identity.
Great examples of issues with disregarding biology to appease demands from Trans activists to be treated special. There are reasons that the term 'sex' is used on legal and medical forms (hint: it is not about gender expression, but biology).
Yet another example of how much this absurdity has taken over, I ran across this today on a County Health site regarding Monkey Pox vaccines: "Monkeypox vaccine is currently available to: Any sexually active man, or transgender or nonbinary person, who has sex with men"
Maybe it is just me, but I could not figure out why being nonbinary or transgender would be a special consideration. Hmm...I have sex with men, but I am not nonbinary (though my gender expression is definitely not very feminine), so does that mean I can't get the vaccine? What if I feel more masculine today... or wait, do I need to feel more feminine.... I am so confused. ;-)
“Maybe it is just me, but I could not figure out why being nonbinary or transgender would be a special consideration”
Me neither. Worse, it makes a medical question that might affect somebody’s healthcare decisions needlessly unclear.
Why not just say “anybody who has sex with men”? If I have to run through a whole algorithm in my head to figure out whether I need the vaccine, maybe I would just give up when I needed it. Healthcare related questions should be as clear and straightforward as possible.
There’s a good reason we aren’t asking “what is a man?” though. Actually there are two.
1. Redefining “msn” makes no significant difference to men’s lives. We already have to deal with other men in our spaces.
2. Trans men aren’t demanding that we change our understanding of our sex class because they are almost unfailingly less aggressive, entitled and predatory than trans women. Whatever could explain that…🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
At a urologist's office the questionnaire did not have the expected "M or F", it had "Your preferred gender identity." Puzzling. But then the physician and physician's assistants have no difficulty deciding if you need to bend over for the finger or lie down and put your feet in the stirrups during the exam. My curiosity did not get the best of me, and I didn't ask about the question.
It may sound like we're all speaking English, but are we sure that we agree on what "English" is? I fear there's more than just inconsistency here: I perceive serious defects in cognition, as seems to happen with most conversations on this subject. It's like watching a school of fish darting this way, then that. It's painful to watch. The solution: agree on a dictionary that all parties find acceptable. Then, define the terms of the debate. So much better than trying to converse with the intellectual equivalent of a whack-a-mole.
Yeah, it’s brainwashing. It’s like talking to any true believer. They twist themselves in knots because they’re determined to defend a particular lie.
As soon as you decide that there’s no difference between trans women and women, you have to redefine all these other words and concepts to maintain the fiction.
I've always been fascinated by cults. Cults rush in where community fails. We seem to be awash with cults now.
Where community fails. So true. I feel strongly that parts of social media are a sort of failed community. Any place where immaturity, shortsightedness, and viciousness rule is not a healthy community.
That's a powerful observation about 'failed community'.
One of my fave things about substack (and it's mostly thoughtful, adult commenters) is how we spark each other into greater insights and awareness. Love it.
It's confusing enough that a "trans woman" is a man and a "trans man" is a woman. Yet to point this out on many a forum guarantees expulsion. I can't wait for this fad to die out but I would've expected it to collapse under the weight of its absurdity long ago.
"Again gender and sex are different things. We don't know the genders of lions, if they have any at all, because we can't talk to them." Say what?!?
You are patient to a fault and have a grasp of logic that is simply lost on the majority of hominids.
This whole argument keeps coming down to language politics and the conflation of Sex and Gender because the same words can be used as classifiers for both. Imagine if the very first DMV license application had two classification question:
Sex: Male Female
Gender: Masculine Feminine _____
In such a world, where Masculine was the genderized term and Male was the Sex term, and blank was commonly filled out, would we be having this conversation?
Yep, you’re right. The problem is, the language games are a deliberate part of the strategy. As I’ve pointed out a few times, it used to be trans people who pointed out that sex and gender are different. And this was useful in helping people wrap their heads around gender dysphoria.
But now, the new wave of trans activists deliberately try to gloss over this difference by using male/man and female/woman interchangeably. Because doing so papers over some of the more glaring flaws in the ideology.
If there was a genuine attempt to use language honestly we wouldn’t struggle with these terms.
What bothers me most about this "trans" phenomenon is the breadth of its acceptance. Let's be candid; a man who puts on a dress, even a man who has himself castrated and goes on hormones, remains a man. He was bathed in androgen in the womb, he grew up with male bones and musculature. If he wants to express himself as female that's his business but it's not mine nor anyone else's.
You've expressed the absurdities here very well and I don't need to embellish them.
But the acceptance is so broad that people are being fired from jobs for refusing to use bad grammar; children are being mutilated by unscrupulous surgeons; millions are laying claim to being "trans" who would never qualify as such by a psychologist, yet nobody dares push back.
A few days ago I was updating my profile on a job search board. There was a new section: "Pronouns." I left it blank; fortunately it was not flagged as required when I went to the next page.
Amazon is doing a series based on Lord of the Rings update with contemporary values; there are black actors and even "non-binary" Elves. Nobody seems to care that there was no Africa in the world of Middle Earth; I suppose if Amazon ever does a series on the Civil War they will have General Lee played by Idris Elba and anyone who objects will be called "racist."
It doesn't sound as though Alex read your article at all.
If anyone could pull off a Black General Lee, it'd be Idris Elba.
Dunno if you saw "28 Weeks Later" but he has a commanding presence in a uniform.
I really like Tolkien's mythology, I am not a fantasy reader otherwise at all but I know the story behind LotR really well, and I am really irrritated by Amazon turning it into another piece of Happy World entertainment. The "inclusiveness" thing has escaped all rational bounds and become unchecked compulsion.
The races of Middle Earth were Elves, Dwarves, Maiar, and Men, not Europeans and Africans. Yet any appeal to faithfully portraying Tolkien's richly detailed world is answered with charges of racism if not fascism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RywJSc3I6dU
I get this. But, honestly, I didn't really notice that much. All of the characters just seemed like "people" to me. It's not as good as the Peter Jackson LOTR, but I like it better than "The Hobbit." The Disney-fication of that story was a huge turnoff. We rewatch LOTR at least once per year. But, we never watch "The Hobbit" trilogy.
I haven't seen 28 weeks later. I'll put it on my list. Re: LOTR: although I find it irritating too, I have to step back and think, this over-correction in representation in media is inevitable and necessary and we will balance out again eventually. I hope.
Fun thought.
Well this is pretty damn icky if you ask me:
"At 14, doctors cut off her breasts and put her on testosterone"
https://gcnews.substack.com/p/friday-september-9-2022
Being mean on the internet? I don't care. Mutilating and sterilizing children? I care a LOT.
So this 66-year-old lifelong Democrat is now voting straight Republican, because the Republican Party is the only organized opposition to these heinous and barbaric practices.
I hate who I have to ally with on this, but IMO this is the most imporant issue in the US today. Nothing else matters more.
That is an extreme over-reaction. A Republican ascendancy all but assures the extinction of life on earth, including, eventually, us.
I find myself extremely discomfited to be in agreement with any conservative position, particularly one so on the leading edge as this "trans" shit. I would favor a federal law that prohibited any medical intervention in the name of gender for anyone short of full adulthood who decides to be "trans" or whatever; once they're adults they can screw up their bodies all they like.
But voting for crazy people, umm, no. BAD idea.
Whenever on a social network I see public figures like Elizabeth Warren with pronouns in their profiles I write and ask them to remove them because it's undignified. Anyone with "they/them" I block.
Your first 2 sentences are just slightly reactionary, don't you think? Just because you disagree with Republicans is no excuse to dehumanize them and attribute to them the traits of pure evil. Dehumanizing the opposition may feel good. But, it's not solution to keeping the country solvent. And politics often requires horsetrading and unpleasant alliances.
I would have died just as happily to secure the rights of the opposition as I would those I agree with while serving in the military. In fact, I would do so happily today if the need was required.
Lunatics and assholes thrive in both of those parties. I could no longer tell you how many times I've written in "No acceptable candidate" in protest of the choices we are given. The last Presidential election was a case in point. Megalomania vs. Dementia for "the leader of the free world." The rulers behind the curtain who really run things are laughing their ass of as the tell us to f ourselves while giving us absurd choices.
Biden demented? I've seen no signs of that. His mind does not wander.
My uncle died of Alzheimer's years before my father, his brother, and the last time my father visited him he asked if they were related.
My father was lucid even after his eyes had closed for the last time. Not everyone goes senile. Though I find myself worrying every time I have to grope for a word I haven't used in a while.
My maternal grandfather and my mother had Alzheimer's. About a year before my mother's passing when she lived with me, she said things like, "When I met you..." and my wife's Thai language TV had her asking about us being in China and how long would it take to get back to America. It is a heartbreaking disorder when it is your loved one, but in the POTUS it should rightfully be considered terrifying. In retirement I do things to exercise my brain in an effort to not go down that path.
I'm not a doctor but I've lived with the demented. I see what looks like it. Biden should be given a test for cognizance by a competent medical expert to put the question to rest. Actually, I think that should be a standard practice for all of our elderly politicians.
These are all over the place, except in the US press.
https://youtu.be/P0AoyNdZ-RY
https://youtu.be/PL3fY67ldR0
I don't mean for this to turn into a partisan political debate, but I do see what appears to me in my non-medical point of view a very disturbing and highly visible behavior on his part. I'd be equally troubled if it was a member of any political tribe.
I'm unfamiliar with that network. It would be ridiculous to insist that a man of Biden's age doesn't have his wandering moments but he is orders of magnitude sharper than the man he defeated in 2020.
Exactly. It could be a matter of ego, but I think I have fewer colossal wandering moments that either of them, but I'm not a sharp as I once was and am also unfit for the office of POTUS. That leads to my disdain for the logic of voting where, "He's not as bad as that other guy" as if that makes the less bad guy good.
I understand that best is the enemy of better, but I'd like to see all of the choices be better so we wouldn't have to make such dreadful choices and hurry home to take a shower after voting.
Oh, I think broad psychological testing should be standard practice for all political candidates above the level of water commissioner, irrespective of age. That would spare us brain-damaged people like Herschel Walker and psychotics like Mastroianni. It would have kept Trump out of office.
I am not saying you're echoing right wing trolling about Biden but the fact that we get so much of it from Trump supporters when Trump is very clearly in advanced deterioration gets kind of irksome. Aside from speaking at a fourth grade level he shows clear signs of dementia and a lot of his word choices are very peculiar. What is a "perfect phone call?"
I don't watch television but I have seen a lot of short videos of Biden speaking and never seen anything that raised this alarm; he tripped a few times getting onto a plane but that's not likely to be for cognitive reasons.
Thinking more about this. As important as scientific understanding is now, and not only with Global Broiling, it is no longer acceptable to have scientifically illiterate people holding the reins of power. Everyone in both houses of Congress needs a basic understanding of the physical sciences and also needs to have a stranglehold on basic arithmetic; anyone who believes that cutting taxes increases revenue is unfit to rule on matters of finance.
This would mean having a curriculum for prospective candidates which those already educated could test out of, and it would spare us the daily emarrassment of Palins and Boeberts.
It doesn't matter if the voters think spaceships have steering wheels. There should be no option to vote for people who think they do.
"𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘴𝘺𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘳, 𝘪𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘨𝘦."
A good idea that I agree with.
"𝘸𝘦 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘴𝘰 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘪𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘳𝘬𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦"
Yeah, Democrats point to the flaws of Republicans and Republicans point to the flaws of Democrats. That is to be expected and we could replace the Ds & Rs with any opposing tribes.
The thing is, I am always disappointed when intelligent people that I respect decide something must be false because someone they don't like said it. Even "𝘥𝘰𝘰 𝘥𝘰𝘰 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘴" can speak truth. If something is false just because Trump said it, I want him to mention everything that is genuinely wrong with me to fix them. He could heal the sick and raise the dead like Jesus Christ. I've got a MAGA friend who often ends conversations with "We can agree to disagree" when I point out that he shouldn't assume that everything that "Dems and RINOs" say is a lie just because he doesn't like them.
It is the reason that I 𝘁𝗿𝘆 to avoid the extremes of political partisanship, but as soon as anyone mentions something about a tribe it is presumed to come from political partisanship. I admit that on 3rd rail issues the pull to partisanship is difficult to resist so I understand it in others. I'm as disappointed in myself as I am in others when I see it, and also when I wrongly assume it about others.
"A Republican ascendancy all but assures the extinction of life on earth, including, eventually, us" is the extreme overreaction here.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Democrats are not serious about climate change. Serious is something that would actually significantly reduce fossil fuel consumption, like say a $5/gallon gas tax. Not happening.
And I submit that people who deny the sex binary are far greater science deniers than those who question complex climate modeling. And also much crazier.
Did I say the Democrats are vigorous in desire to address "climate change?" No, I didn't. But the Republicans are adamant about doing the worst they possibly can, defiantly increasing the burning of fossil fuels.
The gender/sex deniers don't wipe out wildlife. I think the "trans/non-binary" thing is the stupidest shit I've seen in my life but it's just foolishness.
I'm with you. I also hate the mésalliance but am leaning right when I vote (even though I am insanely pro reproductive rights - imagine the battle in MY head over that). But, it has to be done.
Alex: The truth is that cisgender people have not had to consider how their gender, and really most identities are a social construct.
Alex needs to immerse him/herself in some feminist herstory. Trans women routinely call lesbians “Cis women,” as if lesbians and feminists have not been writing about, challenging, and violating gender and gender expression norms for decades prior to the trans movement.
Coincidentally (or not), lesbians and feminists are also the groups that get targeted by trans activists for the most online and in-person abuse.
I will throw this out to you, Steve, since I know we disagree on it. You argue passionately for the right for people to gender-switch; I take it a step further and argue that race-switching is therefore okay too, and my genuine support for it are similar to that for gender-switching: It's a good way to see how the other side lives. The best argument *against* transracialism right now is that black people 'can't do it'; I argue they can (Exhibit A, Michael Jackson, who could have pulled it off if he'd altered his hair a bit more and also wasn't Michael Jackson), but that it's more difficult and maybe even more dangerous. So let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it's now become as easy and equivalently safe for blacks and others to race-switch as for genders. How is that any different? If anything, it'll involve a lot less medical intervention than transgender surgery.
Why would I have a problem with this? Adults can have whatever cosmetic surgery they want (although no, Michael Jackson definitely didn’t “pull off” being white😅).
The issue would just be whether we lose track of whether they are or aren’t black. Similarly, I take no issue with a guy wanting to get breast implants or wear makeup. I take issue when society loses track of whether he is or isn’t a woman.
Gender dysphoria is a rare but real condition. And denying people, male AND female, the treatment they need to alleviate that condition is needlessly cruel. If “race dysphoria” were a thing, I’d feel the same way.
Michael Jackson didn't go all-out trying to be white, but I think he made a real play for it. Quincy Jones said he supposedly took vitiligo medication for *lightening* skin rather than darkening it which is what white vitiligo sufferers take. His skin really did look pretty uniform, but I imagine the alleged chemical peels had something to do with it.
I'm quite sure you indicated several months back you didn't think race-switching was a good idea, back when I said I'd like to read a book called "White Like Me," in which hopefully it elucidated whether becoming white solved all of someone's problems. But don't ask me to dig it up because it was awhile back.
'Race dysphoria' isn't a real condition like gender dysphoria is, it's socially induced, but I think you could make that case about a fair chunk of transgenders. But does it matter? Who cares why someone switches anything? I think it makes for an interesting experiment. I think if Buck Angel is okay, so is Rachel Dolezal. She may have come to it through having black adopted brothers, and she seems to have a lot of personal problems herself. But so what? She's been described by one guy as 'understanding the nuances of black experience' so maybe black culture (or any culture) can be 'learned'. Is it so terrible that she lives as she does, without having grown up black herself?
"I'm quite sure you indicated several months back you didn't think race-switching was a good idea,"
Absolutely. I don't remember that conversation but I certainly *don't* think race switching is a good idea. I don't think gender switching is a good idea either. I think it would be much better if we could help people to be happy and accept themselves in a way that didn't require life-long medicalisation and surgery.
But I would argue for the right to do all kinds of things that I personally don't think are good ideas. I think the issue for most people with Rachel Dolezal was the dishonesty (I just found it bemusing). It's not the efforts she made to look how she looked, it's the lie that this made her black.
Similarly, I think for some (most?) people who have gender dysphoria, medical transition really is their best option. So I think they should have that option. Just like being black, it's not the efforts these people make to look female, it's the dishonesty about whether they *are* female.
One reason (there are a few) why people feel differently about Buck Angel and Rachel Dolezal is that Buck doesn't try to lie about being female.
There is no question that for the gender dysphoric to transition is an enormous relief from a lifetime of despair, depression, and agony. But.
I am convinced that the genuinely dysphoric are not only a minority of the "trans" community, but a small minority.
The insistence by activists on immediate transition is irresponsible and their claim that puberty is too late is simply not going to fly. This is creating the backlash you predicted a few months ago and it is potent. Children in their early teens are not ready to make decisions like that.
Okay, I see your point. She *is* dishonest, and she has quite a checkered history of dishonesty - she got in trouble for welfare fraud way back. She's not someone I would want to be friends with, because of the pre-existing dishonesty, not because she was born white. If I knew someone like her (without the dishonesty) I think I would try to treat her as black but with the understanding that under the fake skin and whatever else she did to 'black herself up', it's still in my awareness that she's a white woman and I might sometimes talk to her that way, expecting her to understand. Which is how I would be with a transwoman I was friends with, there's still this tacit understanding that she is NOT the same as myself and I won't pretend otherwise if the circumstances warrant.
Jenny-now-Ian-Descenzio on Medium is like Buck Angel (one of his role models). He doesn't pretend he's not biologically a woman which is why I can so easily accept him (even though I had a private feeling of, 'Et tu, Brute?' when he first announced this. Jenny was often fairly aggressive and assertive before the switch so I can sort of see it, but I also wonder whether he is a 'bridge brain', someone who embodies a less sex-based way of thinking than others. I see this with a lot of people - some of it seems to be environment, culture, the way they were raised, but I think there may be a bit different brain wiring as well. (Speculation on my part).
Interestingly, when I pulled out the #2 article that Medium took down for 'hate speech' (despite being chosen for distribution for about ten days) and repurposed it for Vocal and my blog, I found a quote from a black social commentator and scholar, Dr. Boyce Watkins, back in 2015 when Dolezal was first 'outed'. He said, “She’s deeply invested in the black community. That’s really what bothers me about it; I looked at her track record, and she’s really into this. She’s teaching about black culture, she understands the subtleties of the black experience, she’s raising black children, she married a black man, she’s going to work for the NAACP. She does more for the black community than 99 percent of the black people that I know. And I know a lot of hard-working black people. So I can’t fault her for this, I just can’t.”
YMMV, but she's not just farting around. She's as serious as an auto accident about what she's done, which I can't say about a lot of other 'transracialists' or a lot of gender-switchers today, most of whom, as Dave Chappelle suggested, are doing more 'gender blackface' than being genuine and committed opposite sex members.
For what it’s worth, as an outsider to the black community, I see the Rachel Dolezal case differently. I read that her kids were black. And her friends. It felt like she wanted acceptance as an insider in the black community. I don’t condone what she did, but I understand it in the same way I understand a trans woman wanting to pass.
I think I understand why people are upset. It feels like it ignores the history of the black experience, in the same way that Alex ignored my history as a woman. But something about the force with which people came down on Rachel didn’t sit right. Maybe I am not as familiar with the case as others are, and also I am not black.
The arguments lefty blacks make against transracialism are *exactly* the same arguments they condone in regard to gender-switching, which is where the hypocrisy in the movement lies. They're right when they claim that 'race is just a social construct'. Well, there are clearly racial differences since, if I could still make babies, I could never produce a black or Chinese one unless I was impregnated by a black or Chinese guy. Racial differences are just surficial and reflect the way our bodies adapted to different climates and environments as we moved out of Africa. It's a lot more complicated with gender switching which is *not* a 'social construct' as they claim and involves a lot more medical effort for a true transition than race-switching would be. And it doesn't change what's between the ears, which grew up male/female.