There are too many ideas in the world. Especially in the social media age. So we find ways to whittle them down. Does the person promoting it have expertise in the field? Does their idea align with what we already know about the world? Is there data to back up their claims? These filters are far from perfect, but they give us a more or less reliable basis to decide whether to invest more time. Lately, however, I’ve noticed a far less reliable filter gaining popularity; is this person on “my side”?
I agree with Miguelito it's time to walk away from the entire "trans" issue. There is nothing more to say. You have made your case clearly already about women's "spaces" and the discussion is going in circles. The self-inflicted backlash article made all your points and there really is nothing more to add (I certainly have nothing more to add either, and I am glad to not be working in an office where some twit turns every discussion to "my gender identity").
On the one side there are the bigots who are not going to give any ground because their bigotry is the foundation of identity; on the other side you have a bunch of fanatic liars whose lives are dedicated to growing the ranks of a bunch of elective freaks who only care about being the center of attention.
For me the end of the argument can be very plainly stated; the great majority opting into the "trans" fad are not gender dysphporic. And a core tenet of the gender ideology movement is that dysphoria is not prerequisite for being "trans."
This is like someone with no African ancestry claiming to be black. It is, plainly and simply, not true. To hell with them. To hell with non-binary, to hell with "trans" ideology, to hell with "they." It's a stupid fad and it will die out.
The real ones? The 5000 or so who really are dysphoric? Full support. The other 99.9% with their rage and their absurd claims can go to hell.
Yeah, believe me, I'm no more interested in endlessly writing about the question of whether a male can transubstantiate into a woman than you are in reading it.
The only reason I bother to speak about this ideology at all is that young, predominantly gay kids are being medicalised by it and vulnerable women, especially in prisons, are being traumatised by it. And most people, many of whom I believe are genuinely good, are too afraid to say anything because they've been convinced that criticising gender ideology is equivalent to hating trans people.
But yes, basically, I agree with you. The argument can be very simply stated. And already has been. The reason I repeat the point is that a great number of people still don't see this issue as clearly as you do and repetition is needed to make some people understand a point.
Also, as Dave points out below, this conversation, while ostensibly about trans issues, was really a way for me to talk about the guilt by association that plagues our discourse (another reason why I think many people can't think clearly about these issues). We need more liberal voices talking about this. Because otherwise it's too easy to dismiss genuine criticism as a "right-wing' talking point.
The only reason I think you should continue towrite about this is because you do have a substantial readership on Medoim, where the "trans" activists have complete dominance over the site, and you somehow have a knack for writing without getting kicked off by frivolous accusations of "transphobia."
What I meant was that to the relatively small readership you have on substack, the issue is exhausted. Mind you I am not complaining.
If I may suggest, I think that taking the trouble to separate the authentically transphobic from the fad-riders is a productive approach. I think their claim that gender dysphoria is not prerequisite to claiming "trans" is a critical weakness of their ideology since that establishes beyond doubt that most of them are just in it for attention.
My perspective on this forum may be unique in that I have known a number of genuine transsexuals before the "trans" fad; this doesn't protect me from their tiresome accusation but it does enable me to lean on the 99:1 difference between the fakes and the genuine.
I do think the activists have gone too far, their ideology is nuttier than MAGA and the "definition of woman" thing and Lia Thomas' unfair advantage are turning people away from the extremity of "woke."
Your choice. But I would lean hard on the position that dysphoria is optional because that means the other 99% are only in it for special attention. And I think the "claiming to be black with no African ancestry" is a powerful point.
I just received a hate speech suspension email from Roger he/him over a non-hateful disagreement with the premise of a story. They win. No more trans comments or stories for me.
I responded to this on my phone but for some reason my response appears as a separate article, above.
I was kicked off again too, no email though, and I had not been on there for weeks. Mostly I responded to drivelous software articles and got tons of claps.
I didn't get kicked off the platform. A couple of comments were "suspended" and I was told my distribution limited (shadow ban) and account suspension next up.
He sent the policies on hate speech and in my opinion none of them applied to my comments.
The best thing for me would be to add trans articles to my don't read this crap list. Honest communication with trans people is as rare as it is with "dear white people" and "patriarchy" authors. Best to avoid them like dog shit on the sidewalk.
I wrote long ago that "a trans woman is biologically male," and this was called hate speech. That was several bannings ago. Bigotry is not prerequisite; all it takes is some rage case yelling "transphobia."
It will not be easy getting out of the "trans" recommendations. They will keep coming. Medium seems to have completely crossed over into two topic of discussion:
1) "trans" activists expressing their rage
2) junior software developers who think they have everything figured out
"it's too easy to dismiss genuine criticism as a "right-wing' talking point."
This is something I struggle with daily. This is the solitary right wing position with which I identify, but the more I see of "trans" the greater becomes my loathing of it. Not only of the attention freaks incessantly making themselves the topic of conversation but the absurdity their beliefs, and the strident suppression of any and all debate by the activists.
Take puberty blockers. There is no question but that they do harm, yet even well-educated people who work with and prescribe them insist that they are as harmless as pausing song playback on an iPod. Research into the harm of transitioning is vehemently suppressed and researchers who don't come to activist-approved conclusions have their careers ruined and receive death threats.
What few longitudinal studies have been done on the transitioned show very high suicide rates 7-10 years later, but all we hear about is suicide among non-transitioned teens who were, incidentally, unhappy and miserable people before they even thought about "trans."
As much as with COVID, I don't think we have even begun to see the long term harm this is doing.
At risk of sounding like the "everything is caused by X" crowd, I think that the struggle is properly the avoidance of viewing individuals as a part of a monolith with a "not all of them" is the question, "What percentage of them?"
Last week I went to Texas for an uncle's 90th birthday. A huge reunion (for me) of extended family. Nobody ruined the Thanksgiving turkey dinner or the birthday Texas barbeque with political talk, but I did have some one-on-one conversations. Mostly steadfastly conservative, with one exception, nothing like the twitter talking point crowd. Their main commonality is economic with the Regonesque thought, "Are you doing better under this or that administration?" You could add, crime and catch and release policies of Democratic administrations. They have a point, but those are probably not the right-wing positions you are thinking of.
The right-wing things that keep me out of their club relate to the none of my business religious stuff. Abortion, same sex marriage, non-heterosexuality, religious government (Christian Nationalism), etc. I don't object to anyone's religion, as Thomas Jefferson wrote, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg", but don't demand that others conform.
As you likely know about me, I have no allegiance to any one tribe though my views lean heavily against those of conservatives. But there are some areas e.g. personal responsibility where I lean more their way (what they say, I mean, not how they fail to carry it out).
But the better-off thing is so simpleminded, as though who is currently president is the only factor affecting quality of life.
Crime? Declining more or less steadily since the Civil War, but listen to the right and we are in a hellscape worsening every day, but hey let's not do anything about guns.
Illegal immigration? Who allowed/created the conditions that are driving them out? The cartels that make northern Mexico so dangerous buy all their guns in Texas.
Try telling a conservative any of this.
As for religion, I am about fed up with this and as I see how much more it inspires hate than inspires charity, I see it more and more as humanity's childhood toy that needs to go back in the toybox, or on a shelf like the Steiff tigers I have had all my life and want to be buried with me.
People desire simplicity. We know that correlation need not be an indication of causation, but it does indicate an area that needs to be examined thoughtfully.
Crime is rising rapidly in my neighborhood, including violent crime. Currently on my citizen ap, person assaulted .7 mi away. I see reports of assault, strong arm robbery, and burglaries on it every day. If things keep going the way that they are going I might decide to arm myself when going out. I don't relish the idea of going to a Quik-Trip for gas to feel like going thru the wire on a combat patrol.
For most of America's existence, migrant workers went back and forth across the border freely benefiting all. Tightening the border caused people to not want to risk it every year so they brought their families and stayed. A high percentage of my neighbors are Spanish speaking Mexicans. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the mass border crossings including fentanyl smugglers, one of the causes of crime in my neighborhood. We need better work permit procedures for migrant workers.
We disagree on guns. There are so many in America that attempts to remove them will only affect the law abiding. A practical view, rather than a wish. One of my right leaning views is that unilateral disarmament is unwise. The fact that guns have been a part of my life since childhood probably biases things.
Your views on religion are understood, I just can't bring myself to trash family and friend relationships over disagreement about religion or politics. I just don't agree and if there is chance for real discussion I'll take it, but I won't force it.
I won't comment on the fentanyl, but the great majority of drug smuggling is marijuana. Plenty of people are ODing on fentanyl they get in the USA and my impression is that this is just another Republican bogeyman, but I don't have the figures.
You know full well that conservative Americans are not going to agree to any migrant worker program any more than they are going to take jobs picking fruit. That ship has sailed. It used to work but then Republicans turned immigration into one of their many fuels for hate. They go into rage if they hear a foreign language.
If violent crime is increasing, what do you think the reason is? Every time they turn on the TV they are stoked into resentment and rage, and guns are a step away from vending machines.
You've seen the graphs and the maps and you know as well as I that the states with the most lax gun laws have the most gun death. You know how many thousands have been shot just in the last few months. You know how much different it is in countries that don't have that psychotic Second Amendment. And I know you are smarter than you are sounding here with that tired "only outlaws will have guns" stuff.
If things keep going on this way, everyone will have to go armed all the time, everywhere, even if they hate guns. And the deaths will keep rising as conditions get worse (we are not far away from droughts raising the price of food above the rent/mortgage; when people are really hungry, not just "ready for supper," things are going to get a lot worse).
Yes there is a gun cult and yes there are many who would take on the cops rather than give up their arsenals. I can't bring myself to shed too many tears for people like that.
The gun culture and the proliferation of people with enough guns to mount an invasion is something we are going to have to deal with sometime, and by letting it get as far as it has with nutjobs like Gov. Abbott we have let all the better options expire. As with AGW, the longer we wait the worse and the more inhumane the solutions are going to be.
I do understand what you're saying; you've been in combat, I haven't; you grew up with guns, I didn't; you don't ever want to find yourself helpless in the face of an armed intruder, I don't entertain scenarios like that. I respect your opinions on a lot of issues and I in no way regard you as a gun kook.
But America has millions of gun kooks and we need to take their guns away, and that cannot be done as long a the damned things are freely available.
Religion will dwindle. Fundamentalists are too much its face and in a lot of Europe religion affiliation is on life support. I do know a few people who are moved to goodness by it, but we both know that they are outnumbered by the religious bigots and psychos like Amy Barrett.
I must admit, I've grown a bit weary of the 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴, but Steve has an enormous following which I neither have nor seek, so I leave it to his consideration and motivation. My comments are generally about the idea presented in the commentary than the words written in the exchange when it comes to 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴 since I have nothing to add to that which has not already been said.
The real topic of this commentary is "Is this person on my side" which is an idea worth discussion.
Oh, this! It is galling to admit that a person or ideology is correct about something (anything), but we have seen it happen right here. But this is a bit of an oasis in the internet desert, thanks to the people attracted to your work.
Roman couldn't comprehend the idea that you could find truth from the lips of a "creep". He's not here to defend himself so that's all I'll say about him, except that as you wrote, he seems to be employing a common filter of late. He just happened to be an example that you chose from a large pool.
I recently watched an interview of Katherine Dee by Tucker Carlson. It was a shocking experience: Tucker came across as reasonable, friendly, and kind. Perhaps because he was sympathetic to the interviewee, who knows. I was shocked because I had never actually watched Carlson before, unless you count clips of him on Twitter that are ridiculing him. I've had a specifically negative & dismissive outlook on him for years, with literally no evidence to back it up, other than those clips.
The interview did not suddenly make me a Tucker fan, of course. Those clips of him are still in my mind, and those clips do include his actual words and perspective, and there is a lot of distance between his politics and mine (especially re. Ukraine). But watching that interview made me realize that as supposedly open-minded & anti-woke as I consider myself to be (while still identifying as both an old school progressive & classical liberal), I was living with this blind spot: I refused to even try to understand why someone like Tucker could be so well-liked that he became the most popular tv personality in the U.S. I don't think it's only because the folks who love him just love him due to wanting to own libs (although that may be a part of the equation for some)... but probably more because they find him to be a relatable person with reasonable opinions.
Maybe Tucker is a creep, maybe he isn't. At this point, unless I watch more of him in full, I actually don't feel comfortable saying what he is. Because I don't know and I don't really have to right to pigeonhole him until I do actually watch more of him. And because, as you say, I found truth fall from the lips of this supposed creep, one who literally all of my social & professional milieu despise (not so much my familial milieu though, lotta Tucker-lovers over there LOL).
Funnily enough, this interview encapsulates exactly why I loathe Tucker Carlson.😅
You don't get to be as successful as he is without being smart, politically savvy, and empathetic. I have no doubt that Tucker possesses all of these gifts and more. And he demonstrates them in this video. But then you watch him on Fox News, (where most of the clips you've seen are probably from) and you see somebody who uses these gifts in the worst possible way. To manipulate and fear-monger. To drive his listeners into a frenzy against the ubiquitous "them."
Somebody like Alex Jones, for example, could never be more than he is. So it's hard to generate much feeling about him. He's a sad, repugnant little man who told whatever lie he thought would keep him relevant. But Carlsen, *could* be something more. He could be this version of himself on Fox News every night. He could still criticise the Democrats, but he could tell the truth as he did it. He could restrain the worst impulses of his fans. He could be honest about Jan 6th and the harm that the extremes of Conservative rhetoric are causing. He has nothing to lose by doing so, but he doesn't.
An interesting perspective on Tucker, one that sounds about right to me. To challenge (or even just engage) you on your perspective, I'd probably have to actually watch him on Fox News to see if I disagree or agree with you. Sadly, I don't think I have the intestinal fortitude to do that LOL. Those clips are enough for me!
Only tangentially related, but my general finger-click response to Tucker is about the same as it is for Chris Hayes and for Rachel Maddow when she was on MSNBC (unless she's already returned). If I see any of those folks, I just change the channel. Although that was for when I even watched the news, which now I avoid except during elections.
Haha, believe me, you’re not missing much by not watching him on Dox News. I do so only out of necessity. Also, you’re the second person to mention Rachel Maddow in the same breath as Tucker Carlson. I think I’ll need to check her out.
I hope this (an expression from my wife) doesn't go in your ears wrong. Politicians and political pundits are all about hyperbole and bs when it suits them. Just my opinion/observation but what people most dislike about the ones on "the other side" is not the lies they tell, but the truths because the truth often hurts. Sometimes they are telling truths or giving perspective we don't like. It's ready to call out the bs. The uncomfortable truths, not so much.
I 𝙩𝙧𝙮 to understand, rather than judge, when it comes to people. I emphasized try because I am human, complete with emotions which often leads to judgement and worse.
My world is and has been highly diverse in culture/subculture, ideology, religion and worldview as well as "racially". It has given me an intimate view of them. While I don't agree with all of that, I usually can empathize and hopefully have some understanding of it.
One thing that I see a lot of is, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Enemies are often the result of resentment.
The working-class conservatives (poorly educated basket of deplorables who cling to their guns and bibles) in flyover country resent the hell out of the contempt that so often comes from arrogant liberals. When a Trump, Carlson or Palin comes along and gives their nemesis the finger, they like it, actually they love it. They don't really fail to see their flaws but "𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥."
There is enough truth in that that the left is easily lampooned, ridiculed and memed from sites like https://babylonbee.com/ Liberals often resent that. That site was removed from Twitter during the pre-Musk silencing of such things (they're back).
I could give more examples, but that is enough to make the point, I hope. I think that far fewer are blind to the flaws in their own 𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦 than we believe, but resentment allows them to be ignored. Aaaand, resentment is an emotion and emotion is king, contrary to what people wish to believe about themselves.
Some basics from my time living in Saudi Arabia. "𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥." and "𝘒𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘳." Distressing to big space Americans, they took close seriously and sat touching each other. You can feel a sudden attack before you see it.
Most of the world embraces the folly of the first and ignores the wisdom of the second, living in silos of what is often misconception of their 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘦𝘴.
Wow: thank you. I have never seen Tucker Carlson so quiet before. Not that I've seen enough of him to say, really: the few times I've seen him up to now I found him tiresomely loud and pugnacious. Like most of his ilk. But I was impressed with the interview. Good to hear a more compassionate take on the mass shooter phenomenon. Such destructive nihilism is overwhelming to contemplate for most of us, but is it any more overwhelming than the result? The avoidance of hard truths perpetuates the conditions for those hard truths to keep popping up, over and over again.
I'm so glad you watched it! I was also very impressed with Katherine's compassion and her goal of understanding how the nihilism of one could be a marker for a much wider phenomenon.
And well said Nona, about our collective avoidance of hard truths.
As much as I despise conservatives you can imagine how uncomfortable I feel finding myself with a point of agreement with them. Then again I don't feel I am part of the other "tribe" and therefore am not obliged to disagree with everything they say.
But this "trans" thing is just a way to get attention and I am sick and tired of it. No, I don't think taking kids to drag shows is going to warp them, but then I don't think hitting a keyboard with a penis is some pivotal social advance, either.
When it comes to trans ideologues, reasoning is useless. And you've gone over the same ground so many times. There are no longer any productive points to be made.
It's a religion, Steve. Time to move on. It's a waste of your good mind to endlessly rehash this.
I don't agree that Steve should move on. There are so few people who are even *looking* at the trans issue. Most people are of the view, "Oh. Marginalized. Must support." If Steve doesn't do it, who will?
The kids weren't being groomed to look at Goths as the standard way of looking at things.
And the Goths weren't being supported by the TMC. The Techno-Medical Complex. I read recently that each kid who "transitioned" (euphemism if there ever was one).. Well, they're worth a cool $1 MILLION to Big Pharm. And there aren't any poor doctors amongst those who do this treatment, I'm sure.
Yeah nothing there I can ethically disagree with; I'm not making a comparison (goths didn't get their genitals cut off a few months after wondering if maybe they should join the club) but where goth just died out, I think "trans" is going to disgust people away. That dick-chick who played the final note with his penis, the young girls who age out of "trans" an become gay only now they've had pieces cut off, the tyranny of the pronouns and the torrent of rage, in time people are going to get sick of the whole thing and start yelling back at the one s whining about being "misgendered." I would hope that by now employers are winnowing out job applicants who append pronoun pairs to their CVs as likely troublemakers.
I've heard from people I've known for years and who usually research what they write about that there has never been surgery on anyone under 18, that blockers are fully reversible. This is a tenacious cult.
TY for Your reply, M Chris. I really hope You're right. I hope people realize, in the end, that they're really gay, when they've been told they trans. Tenacious sure is right.
I guess one thing that really bothers me is that the America Academy of Pediatrics refused a petition to just look into the science issues. The EU and the UK are light-years ahead of the U.S. on this. But, then, You've got the President trying to mandate "affirmative care," AKA conversion therapy.
It's a wonder to me how reason has been thrown out with the bathwater. TY again.
Gender transition is an experimental procedure. There are no longitudunal studies of either prolonged hormone use or surgery but several interviewees in the Walsh video claimed that there is a lot of suicide 7-10 years after transition, yet all we hear about is suicide among "trans" youth who were already having serious problems long before they ran into some online "trans" forum.
Academia is not allowed to perform such studies because if their research leads them to places the "trans" activists don't like they will be hounded out of their careers and receive late night death threats. A counselor who tells a disturbed girl that she isn't really "trans" is likely to lose his job.
The "trans" activists share a lot of attitudes with MAGA.
jt, there are a bunch and they are right here on Substack. BARpod & Singal-minded, Lisa Selin Davis' Broadview, it is Wesley Yang's current and very deep obsession on Year Zero, Colin Wright of course, Andrew Sullivan has weighed in at least a couple times, Abigail Shrier's The Truth Fairy, and Graham Linehan's infamous The Glinner Update. This is the topic du jour and there are a ton of folks weighing in on it from all sides. So much so that the topic might have even reached a tipping point. Everyone I listed above is more or less coming from a perspective that is critical of current trans ideology (to varying degrees of intensity). It's on Medium where we get the rah-rah/must automatically support zombie-crowd. Quite the opposite here on Substack.
There are a number of trans writers who are also critical of trans ideology. I'd recommend TaraElla Project for a very balanced perspective. She is perhaps the only trans writer I'm familiar with who is openly critical of trans ideologues (as well as other woke models like postmodernism & CRT) while still remaining a progressive liberal. A highly intellectual writer (and quite dry). Another trans progressive, Contra Points, has also had her moments of being critical (mainly towards non-binaries and cancel culture though), but she's a YouTube personality. Of course there is also YouTuber Blaire White, who is very enjoyable, but she's full-on red pill/alt-right, so of course she's against modern trans ideology, despite being trans herself.
Personally, I would love it if Steve could tackle other topics, just as I'm very appreciative when BARpod & Singal-minded do the same. His style is straightforward, personable, and resonant, he does the research, and he is a very clear thinker. It would be interesting to see his thoughts on topics other than gender & race & cancel culture. (Not saying I don't appreciate his writings on those topics! His writing on those topics is why I'm here in the first place.)
If you read the history of "trans" affirmation you will see that studies are limited to teens who have been formally diagnosed as dysphoric. The rate of regret for those who undergo hormones and surgery is very low.
What has changed with the advent of the "cisnormativity" screamers is the removal of the dysphoria requirement; they call this "medicalizing" a condition which they insist as regarding as a choice that should be unconditionally respected.
This does harm.
One of the ugliest claims of the far right has been that being gay is a choice, by their definition an immoral one, and that any gay person can as easily choose to be straight.
With "trans" the activists take the opposite tact; that "trans" can be chosen, and that's OK.
Except that ... to accept this requires turning an indifferent eye to elective mutilation of people who will outgrow their "trans" beliefs in a few years, albeit missing pieces they were born with.
There is a condition called Body Identity Integrity Disorder in which people convince themselves that one or more of their limbs are cumbersome and unwieldy and seek to have healthy arms or legs amputated. People have even lain a leg across a railroad track (they bled to death in seconds). Some of them manage to find surgeons who will take their money and amputate (sound familiar?). In fact the two disorders are both called dysphorias and are regarded as related.
I don't see a lot of BIID activists screaming about the tyranny of fourlimbnormativity. But the "trans" shit is not far from that.
A quarter century ago there were three hospitals in the entire USA that would perform gender reassignment surgery and qualification was extremely strict: two years living as the other gender, exhaustive psychiatric screening. The great majority was rejected.
Now there are over sixty "gender clinics" and qualification is all but wide open. "I think I might be trans." Get on the table, count down from ten. Activists have manipulated every initially sober medical debate with screams of bigotry (always expressed in some idiotic words that didn't exist a few months ago) and demands that pharmaceutical and surgical intervention begin at ever younger ages.
Steve has written enough about the activists and it is amazing he hasn't gotten that email from Roger (he/him); I got it for saying that a transwoman is biologically male, which is about as controversial as saying the earth orbits the sun. Most of the articles written by "trans" are roiling with rage, these are clearly unbalanced people and by any metric, the gerat majority of those claiming "trans" are solely in it for attention.
I'm familiar with all but the TaraElla Project. I'll read her directly. But here's the thing: The folks You mentioned are doing good work but, on balance, they're a drop in the ocean.
I didn't mean to "say" that Steve should *only* write on trans issues. Just that it's important that he adds a drop in the ocean of insanity.
One thing has give me genuine hope recently: the hyper-woke NYT has now run at least 2-3 articles in the past few months that are clearly questioning some of that ocean of insanity that is concerning to many of us here. I do think the tide is turning and the fringe perspectives are increasingly being seen as exactly that, fringe. Right now the shift appears focused on questioning the medicalization of minors (thank God, that is the place where I'd start too), but I can see it going in other directions eventually, like sports.
Or maybe I'm just a glass-half-full kinda guy LOL.
I think Steve mentioned the Matt Walsh video "What is a Woman?" Someone sent me a torrent link and I just finished watching it.
I don't know anything about Walsh, I have read that he is a conservative and there was one disturbing segment where he appeared with scrotum-tanning advocate Tucker Carlson but I found everything he said in the video to be quite reasonable and without any hint of any bigotry of any kind.
ON THE OTHER HAND. The "trans" advocates in the piece were evasive, dishonest, duplicitous, and contemptible. Many of them responded to simple questions with "this interview is over" and it could not have been more obvious that they were wholly unable to defend this beliefs and were totally disconnected from reality.
Many of them claimed that puberty blockers are completely reversible but others noted that the company producing them was sued for nearly a billion dollars, and that they have terrible side effects like osteoporosis, a highly elevated cancer risk, and that there have been no longitudinal studies on them, moreover that all such studies, along with many others on the long term health of those who have been mutilated in some perverse "affirmation," have all been suppressed by "trans" activists and that in some countries to not use some twit's "correct pronouns" is treated by the law with the same severity as brutal physical assault.
I'm trying to keep my anger down but at this point I think a lot of these "trans" activists deserve mob beatings.
I haven't been on medium in a few weeks, mostly responding to some disgusting software articles, I just checked and there is that red banner. I'm sick of the place. I wasn't writing about "trans" but I think they have an algorithm for detecting banned people on new accounts. I got no email, again.
Sour grapes: the place is nothing like it was a few years ago, not just the "trans" infestation but they publish a lot of truly lousy articles now most of them are not worth the time to read. Not quite down to Quora level yet but getting there.
If you respond to any "trans" article then 100% of your recommendations from then on are more "trans" articles, mostly from enraged and clearly unbalanced people.
Pity. I used to like writing on there, and I made a lot of money.
I wonder ... I was writing a draft article about "trans" and letting it all out, with every expectation of being kicked off as soon as one of the TNs read it. Maybe someone reviews drafts and reported mine to Roger (he/him).
Count me in with the 'let's give trans a rest' for awhile brigade. Unless you find something new to say that isn't necessarily preaching to the choir. Maybe get back to race issues? What's your thought on the potential end of affirmative action via the Supreme Court? Glenn Loury's been weighing in on that recently and I'm paying attention because it affects me too as a woman. Also, if you don't always want to write about race & are tired of trans, how about feminism? There's a lot of similarity and crossover to our respective 'disadvantage' concerns and probably critiques.
I'm surprised you haven't gotten thrown off Medium for being 'transphobic' :)
I agree with Miguelito it's time to walk away from the entire "trans" issue. There is nothing more to say. You have made your case clearly already about women's "spaces" and the discussion is going in circles. The self-inflicted backlash article made all your points and there really is nothing more to add (I certainly have nothing more to add either, and I am glad to not be working in an office where some twit turns every discussion to "my gender identity").
On the one side there are the bigots who are not going to give any ground because their bigotry is the foundation of identity; on the other side you have a bunch of fanatic liars whose lives are dedicated to growing the ranks of a bunch of elective freaks who only care about being the center of attention.
For me the end of the argument can be very plainly stated; the great majority opting into the "trans" fad are not gender dysphporic. And a core tenet of the gender ideology movement is that dysphoria is not prerequisite for being "trans."
This is like someone with no African ancestry claiming to be black. It is, plainly and simply, not true. To hell with them. To hell with non-binary, to hell with "trans" ideology, to hell with "they." It's a stupid fad and it will die out.
The real ones? The 5000 or so who really are dysphoric? Full support. The other 99.9% with their rage and their absurd claims can go to hell.
Why waste any more time on it?
"Why waste any more time on it?"
Yeah, believe me, I'm no more interested in endlessly writing about the question of whether a male can transubstantiate into a woman than you are in reading it.
The only reason I bother to speak about this ideology at all is that young, predominantly gay kids are being medicalised by it and vulnerable women, especially in prisons, are being traumatised by it. And most people, many of whom I believe are genuinely good, are too afraid to say anything because they've been convinced that criticising gender ideology is equivalent to hating trans people.
But yes, basically, I agree with you. The argument can be very simply stated. And already has been. The reason I repeat the point is that a great number of people still don't see this issue as clearly as you do and repetition is needed to make some people understand a point.
Also, as Dave points out below, this conversation, while ostensibly about trans issues, was really a way for me to talk about the guilt by association that plagues our discourse (another reason why I think many people can't think clearly about these issues). We need more liberal voices talking about this. Because otherwise it's too easy to dismiss genuine criticism as a "right-wing' talking point.
The only reason I think you should continue towrite about this is because you do have a substantial readership on Medoim, where the "trans" activists have complete dominance over the site, and you somehow have a knack for writing without getting kicked off by frivolous accusations of "transphobia."
What I meant was that to the relatively small readership you have on substack, the issue is exhausted. Mind you I am not complaining.
If I may suggest, I think that taking the trouble to separate the authentically transphobic from the fad-riders is a productive approach. I think their claim that gender dysphoria is not prerequisite to claiming "trans" is a critical weakness of their ideology since that establishes beyond doubt that most of them are just in it for attention.
My perspective on this forum may be unique in that I have known a number of genuine transsexuals before the "trans" fad; this doesn't protect me from their tiresome accusation but it does enable me to lean on the 99:1 difference between the fakes and the genuine.
I do think the activists have gone too far, their ideology is nuttier than MAGA and the "definition of woman" thing and Lia Thomas' unfair advantage are turning people away from the extremity of "woke."
Your choice. But I would lean hard on the position that dysphoria is optional because that means the other 99% are only in it for special attention. And I think the "claiming to be black with no African ancestry" is a powerful point.
I just received a hate speech suspension email from Roger he/him over a non-hateful disagreement with the premise of a story. They win. No more trans comments or stories for me.
I responded to this on my phone but for some reason my response appears as a separate article, above.
I was kicked off again too, no email though, and I had not been on there for weeks. Mostly I responded to drivelous software articles and got tons of claps.
I didn't get kicked off the platform. A couple of comments were "suspended" and I was told my distribution limited (shadow ban) and account suspension next up.
He sent the policies on hate speech and in my opinion none of them applied to my comments.
The best thing for me would be to add trans articles to my don't read this crap list. Honest communication with trans people is as rare as it is with "dear white people" and "patriarchy" authors. Best to avoid them like dog shit on the sidewalk.
I wrote long ago that "a trans woman is biologically male," and this was called hate speech. That was several bannings ago. Bigotry is not prerequisite; all it takes is some rage case yelling "transphobia."
It will not be easy getting out of the "trans" recommendations. They will keep coming. Medium seems to have completely crossed over into two topic of discussion:
1) "trans" activists expressing their rage
2) junior software developers who think they have everything figured out
"it's too easy to dismiss genuine criticism as a "right-wing' talking point."
This is something I struggle with daily. This is the solitary right wing position with which I identify, but the more I see of "trans" the greater becomes my loathing of it. Not only of the attention freaks incessantly making themselves the topic of conversation but the absurdity their beliefs, and the strident suppression of any and all debate by the activists.
Take puberty blockers. There is no question but that they do harm, yet even well-educated people who work with and prescribe them insist that they are as harmless as pausing song playback on an iPod. Research into the harm of transitioning is vehemently suppressed and researchers who don't come to activist-approved conclusions have their careers ruined and receive death threats.
What few longitudinal studies have been done on the transitioned show very high suicide rates 7-10 years later, but all we hear about is suicide among non-transitioned teens who were, incidentally, unhappy and miserable people before they even thought about "trans."
As much as with COVID, I don't think we have even begun to see the long term harm this is doing.
"𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘐 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘨𝘨𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘥𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘺."
At risk of sounding like the "everything is caused by X" crowd, I think that the struggle is properly the avoidance of viewing individuals as a part of a monolith with a "not all of them" is the question, "What percentage of them?"
Last week I went to Texas for an uncle's 90th birthday. A huge reunion (for me) of extended family. Nobody ruined the Thanksgiving turkey dinner or the birthday Texas barbeque with political talk, but I did have some one-on-one conversations. Mostly steadfastly conservative, with one exception, nothing like the twitter talking point crowd. Their main commonality is economic with the Regonesque thought, "Are you doing better under this or that administration?" You could add, crime and catch and release policies of Democratic administrations. They have a point, but those are probably not the right-wing positions you are thinking of.
The right-wing things that keep me out of their club relate to the none of my business religious stuff. Abortion, same sex marriage, non-heterosexuality, religious government (Christian Nationalism), etc. I don't object to anyone's religion, as Thomas Jefferson wrote, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg", but don't demand that others conform.
As you likely know about me, I have no allegiance to any one tribe though my views lean heavily against those of conservatives. But there are some areas e.g. personal responsibility where I lean more their way (what they say, I mean, not how they fail to carry it out).
But the better-off thing is so simpleminded, as though who is currently president is the only factor affecting quality of life.
Crime? Declining more or less steadily since the Civil War, but listen to the right and we are in a hellscape worsening every day, but hey let's not do anything about guns.
Illegal immigration? Who allowed/created the conditions that are driving them out? The cartels that make northern Mexico so dangerous buy all their guns in Texas.
Try telling a conservative any of this.
As for religion, I am about fed up with this and as I see how much more it inspires hate than inspires charity, I see it more and more as humanity's childhood toy that needs to go back in the toybox, or on a shelf like the Steiff tigers I have had all my life and want to be buried with me.
People desire simplicity. We know that correlation need not be an indication of causation, but it does indicate an area that needs to be examined thoughtfully.
Crime is rising rapidly in my neighborhood, including violent crime. Currently on my citizen ap, person assaulted .7 mi away. I see reports of assault, strong arm robbery, and burglaries on it every day. If things keep going the way that they are going I might decide to arm myself when going out. I don't relish the idea of going to a Quik-Trip for gas to feel like going thru the wire on a combat patrol.
For most of America's existence, migrant workers went back and forth across the border freely benefiting all. Tightening the border caused people to not want to risk it every year so they brought their families and stayed. A high percentage of my neighbors are Spanish speaking Mexicans. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the mass border crossings including fentanyl smugglers, one of the causes of crime in my neighborhood. We need better work permit procedures for migrant workers.
We disagree on guns. There are so many in America that attempts to remove them will only affect the law abiding. A practical view, rather than a wish. One of my right leaning views is that unilateral disarmament is unwise. The fact that guns have been a part of my life since childhood probably biases things.
Your views on religion are understood, I just can't bring myself to trash family and friend relationships over disagreement about religion or politics. I just don't agree and if there is chance for real discussion I'll take it, but I won't force it.
I won't comment on the fentanyl, but the great majority of drug smuggling is marijuana. Plenty of people are ODing on fentanyl they get in the USA and my impression is that this is just another Republican bogeyman, but I don't have the figures.
You know full well that conservative Americans are not going to agree to any migrant worker program any more than they are going to take jobs picking fruit. That ship has sailed. It used to work but then Republicans turned immigration into one of their many fuels for hate. They go into rage if they hear a foreign language.
If violent crime is increasing, what do you think the reason is? Every time they turn on the TV they are stoked into resentment and rage, and guns are a step away from vending machines.
You've seen the graphs and the maps and you know as well as I that the states with the most lax gun laws have the most gun death. You know how many thousands have been shot just in the last few months. You know how much different it is in countries that don't have that psychotic Second Amendment. And I know you are smarter than you are sounding here with that tired "only outlaws will have guns" stuff.
If things keep going on this way, everyone will have to go armed all the time, everywhere, even if they hate guns. And the deaths will keep rising as conditions get worse (we are not far away from droughts raising the price of food above the rent/mortgage; when people are really hungry, not just "ready for supper," things are going to get a lot worse).
Yes there is a gun cult and yes there are many who would take on the cops rather than give up their arsenals. I can't bring myself to shed too many tears for people like that.
The gun culture and the proliferation of people with enough guns to mount an invasion is something we are going to have to deal with sometime, and by letting it get as far as it has with nutjobs like Gov. Abbott we have let all the better options expire. As with AGW, the longer we wait the worse and the more inhumane the solutions are going to be.
I do understand what you're saying; you've been in combat, I haven't; you grew up with guns, I didn't; you don't ever want to find yourself helpless in the face of an armed intruder, I don't entertain scenarios like that. I respect your opinions on a lot of issues and I in no way regard you as a gun kook.
But America has millions of gun kooks and we need to take their guns away, and that cannot be done as long a the damned things are freely available.
Religion will dwindle. Fundamentalists are too much its face and in a lot of Europe religion affiliation is on life support. I do know a few people who are moved to goodness by it, but we both know that they are outnumbered by the religious bigots and psychos like Amy Barrett.
I must admit, I've grown a bit weary of the 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴, but Steve has an enormous following which I neither have nor seek, so I leave it to his consideration and motivation. My comments are generally about the idea presented in the commentary than the words written in the exchange when it comes to 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴 since I have nothing to add to that which has not already been said.
The real topic of this commentary is "Is this person on my side" which is an idea worth discussion.
"𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘯 “𝘮𝘺 𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦”?"
Oh, this! It is galling to admit that a person or ideology is correct about something (anything), but we have seen it happen right here. But this is a bit of an oasis in the internet desert, thanks to the people attracted to your work.
Roman couldn't comprehend the idea that you could find truth from the lips of a "creep". He's not here to defend himself so that's all I'll say about him, except that as you wrote, he seems to be employing a common filter of late. He just happened to be an example that you chose from a large pool.
I recently watched an interview of Katherine Dee by Tucker Carlson. It was a shocking experience: Tucker came across as reasonable, friendly, and kind. Perhaps because he was sympathetic to the interviewee, who knows. I was shocked because I had never actually watched Carlson before, unless you count clips of him on Twitter that are ridiculing him. I've had a specifically negative & dismissive outlook on him for years, with literally no evidence to back it up, other than those clips.
The interview did not suddenly make me a Tucker fan, of course. Those clips of him are still in my mind, and those clips do include his actual words and perspective, and there is a lot of distance between his politics and mine (especially re. Ukraine). But watching that interview made me realize that as supposedly open-minded & anti-woke as I consider myself to be (while still identifying as both an old school progressive & classical liberal), I was living with this blind spot: I refused to even try to understand why someone like Tucker could be so well-liked that he became the most popular tv personality in the U.S. I don't think it's only because the folks who love him just love him due to wanting to own libs (although that may be a part of the equation for some)... but probably more because they find him to be a relatable person with reasonable opinions.
Maybe Tucker is a creep, maybe he isn't. At this point, unless I watch more of him in full, I actually don't feel comfortable saying what he is. Because I don't know and I don't really have to right to pigeonhole him until I do actually watch more of him. And because, as you say, I found truth fall from the lips of this supposed creep, one who literally all of my social & professional milieu despise (not so much my familial milieu though, lotta Tucker-lovers over there LOL).
If you're curious about the interview:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/HN9PCOz9wq0N/
The interview also made me a fan of Katherine Dee (she was recently interviewed on BARpod). She has a Substack as well:
https://defaultfriend.substack.com/
Funnily enough, this interview encapsulates exactly why I loathe Tucker Carlson.😅
You don't get to be as successful as he is without being smart, politically savvy, and empathetic. I have no doubt that Tucker possesses all of these gifts and more. And he demonstrates them in this video. But then you watch him on Fox News, (where most of the clips you've seen are probably from) and you see somebody who uses these gifts in the worst possible way. To manipulate and fear-monger. To drive his listeners into a frenzy against the ubiquitous "them."
Somebody like Alex Jones, for example, could never be more than he is. So it's hard to generate much feeling about him. He's a sad, repugnant little man who told whatever lie he thought would keep him relevant. But Carlsen, *could* be something more. He could be this version of himself on Fox News every night. He could still criticise the Democrats, but he could tell the truth as he did it. He could restrain the worst impulses of his fans. He could be honest about Jan 6th and the harm that the extremes of Conservative rhetoric are causing. He has nothing to lose by doing so, but he doesn't.
An interesting perspective on Tucker, one that sounds about right to me. To challenge (or even just engage) you on your perspective, I'd probably have to actually watch him on Fox News to see if I disagree or agree with you. Sadly, I don't think I have the intestinal fortitude to do that LOL. Those clips are enough for me!
Only tangentially related, but my general finger-click response to Tucker is about the same as it is for Chris Hayes and for Rachel Maddow when she was on MSNBC (unless she's already returned). If I see any of those folks, I just change the channel. Although that was for when I even watched the news, which now I avoid except during elections.
Haha, believe me, you’re not missing much by not watching him on Dox News. I do so only out of necessity. Also, you’re the second person to mention Rachel Maddow in the same breath as Tucker Carlson. I think I’ll need to check her out.
I hope this (an expression from my wife) doesn't go in your ears wrong. Politicians and political pundits are all about hyperbole and bs when it suits them. Just my opinion/observation but what people most dislike about the ones on "the other side" is not the lies they tell, but the truths because the truth often hurts. Sometimes they are telling truths or giving perspective we don't like. It's ready to call out the bs. The uncomfortable truths, not so much.
"easy to call out bs" my phone doesn't let me edit. Away from my computer on a visit with extended family.
I 𝙩𝙧𝙮 to understand, rather than judge, when it comes to people. I emphasized try because I am human, complete with emotions which often leads to judgement and worse.
My world is and has been highly diverse in culture/subculture, ideology, religion and worldview as well as "racially". It has given me an intimate view of them. While I don't agree with all of that, I usually can empathize and hopefully have some understanding of it.
One thing that I see a lot of is, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Enemies are often the result of resentment.
The working-class conservatives (poorly educated basket of deplorables who cling to their guns and bibles) in flyover country resent the hell out of the contempt that so often comes from arrogant liberals. When a Trump, Carlson or Palin comes along and gives their nemesis the finger, they like it, actually they love it. They don't really fail to see their flaws but "𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥."
"𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘰 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮; 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘭." -𝘎𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘦 𝘖𝘳𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭
There is enough truth in that that the left is easily lampooned, ridiculed and memed from sites like https://babylonbee.com/ Liberals often resent that. That site was removed from Twitter during the pre-Musk silencing of such things (they're back).
I could give more examples, but that is enough to make the point, I hope. I think that far fewer are blind to the flaws in their own 𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦 than we believe, but resentment allows them to be ignored. Aaaand, resentment is an emotion and emotion is king, contrary to what people wish to believe about themselves.
Some basics from my time living in Saudi Arabia. "𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘺 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥." and "𝘒𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘳." Distressing to big space Americans, they took close seriously and sat touching each other. You can feel a sudden attack before you see it.
Most of the world embraces the folly of the first and ignores the wisdom of the second, living in silos of what is often misconception of their 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘦𝘴.
Wow: thank you. I have never seen Tucker Carlson so quiet before. Not that I've seen enough of him to say, really: the few times I've seen him up to now I found him tiresomely loud and pugnacious. Like most of his ilk. But I was impressed with the interview. Good to hear a more compassionate take on the mass shooter phenomenon. Such destructive nihilism is overwhelming to contemplate for most of us, but is it any more overwhelming than the result? The avoidance of hard truths perpetuates the conditions for those hard truths to keep popping up, over and over again.
I'm so glad you watched it! I was also very impressed with Katherine's compassion and her goal of understanding how the nihilism of one could be a marker for a much wider phenomenon.
And well said Nona, about our collective avoidance of hard truths.
As much as I despise conservatives you can imagine how uncomfortable I feel finding myself with a point of agreement with them. Then again I don't feel I am part of the other "tribe" and therefore am not obliged to disagree with everything they say.
But this "trans" thing is just a way to get attention and I am sick and tired of it. No, I don't think taking kids to drag shows is going to warp them, but then I don't think hitting a keyboard with a penis is some pivotal social advance, either.
Nuance. We lack nuance, these days. I love the word, "nuance", btw. It's got great mouthfeel, and three out of five vowels. What's not to like?
Steve, another *great* article. TYTY. Hope You keep it up.
You and mebbe some others might be interested in "The Bias That Divides Us: The Science and Politics of Myside Thinking." https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55782347-the-bias-that-divides-us
TY again.
When it comes to trans ideologues, reasoning is useless. And you've gone over the same ground so many times. There are no longer any productive points to be made.
It's a religion, Steve. Time to move on. It's a waste of your good mind to endlessly rehash this.
I don't agree that Steve should move on. There are so few people who are even *looking* at the trans issue. Most people are of the view, "Oh. Marginalized. Must support." If Steve doesn't do it, who will?
IIt's a fad and just like every other fad it will die out after it's finished doing harm.
Seen a lot of goths lately?
Sorry I can't agree with You on this one.
The kids weren't being groomed to look at Goths as the standard way of looking at things.
And the Goths weren't being supported by the TMC. The Techno-Medical Complex. I read recently that each kid who "transitioned" (euphemism if there ever was one).. Well, they're worth a cool $1 MILLION to Big Pharm. And there aren't any poor doctors amongst those who do this treatment, I'm sure.
Yeah nothing there I can ethically disagree with; I'm not making a comparison (goths didn't get their genitals cut off a few months after wondering if maybe they should join the club) but where goth just died out, I think "trans" is going to disgust people away. That dick-chick who played the final note with his penis, the young girls who age out of "trans" an become gay only now they've had pieces cut off, the tyranny of the pronouns and the torrent of rage, in time people are going to get sick of the whole thing and start yelling back at the one s whining about being "misgendered." I would hope that by now employers are winnowing out job applicants who append pronoun pairs to their CVs as likely troublemakers.
I've heard from people I've known for years and who usually research what they write about that there has never been surgery on anyone under 18, that blockers are fully reversible. This is a tenacious cult.
TY for Your reply, M Chris. I really hope You're right. I hope people realize, in the end, that they're really gay, when they've been told they trans. Tenacious sure is right.
I guess one thing that really bothers me is that the America Academy of Pediatrics refused a petition to just look into the science issues. The EU and the UK are light-years ahead of the U.S. on this. But, then, You've got the President trying to mandate "affirmative care," AKA conversion therapy.
It's a wonder to me how reason has been thrown out with the bathwater. TY again.
Gender transition is an experimental procedure. There are no longitudunal studies of either prolonged hormone use or surgery but several interviewees in the Walsh video claimed that there is a lot of suicide 7-10 years after transition, yet all we hear about is suicide among "trans" youth who were already having serious problems long before they ran into some online "trans" forum.
Academia is not allowed to perform such studies because if their research leads them to places the "trans" activists don't like they will be hounded out of their careers and receive late night death threats. A counselor who tells a disturbed girl that she isn't really "trans" is likely to lose his job.
The "trans" activists share a lot of attitudes with MAGA.
jt, there are a bunch and they are right here on Substack. BARpod & Singal-minded, Lisa Selin Davis' Broadview, it is Wesley Yang's current and very deep obsession on Year Zero, Colin Wright of course, Andrew Sullivan has weighed in at least a couple times, Abigail Shrier's The Truth Fairy, and Graham Linehan's infamous The Glinner Update. This is the topic du jour and there are a ton of folks weighing in on it from all sides. So much so that the topic might have even reached a tipping point. Everyone I listed above is more or less coming from a perspective that is critical of current trans ideology (to varying degrees of intensity). It's on Medium where we get the rah-rah/must automatically support zombie-crowd. Quite the opposite here on Substack.
There are a number of trans writers who are also critical of trans ideology. I'd recommend TaraElla Project for a very balanced perspective. She is perhaps the only trans writer I'm familiar with who is openly critical of trans ideologues (as well as other woke models like postmodernism & CRT) while still remaining a progressive liberal. A highly intellectual writer (and quite dry). Another trans progressive, Contra Points, has also had her moments of being critical (mainly towards non-binaries and cancel culture though), but she's a YouTube personality. Of course there is also YouTuber Blaire White, who is very enjoyable, but she's full-on red pill/alt-right, so of course she's against modern trans ideology, despite being trans herself.
Personally, I would love it if Steve could tackle other topics, just as I'm very appreciative when BARpod & Singal-minded do the same. His style is straightforward, personable, and resonant, he does the research, and he is a very clear thinker. It would be interesting to see his thoughts on topics other than gender & race & cancel culture. (Not saying I don't appreciate his writings on those topics! His writing on those topics is why I'm here in the first place.)
If you read the history of "trans" affirmation you will see that studies are limited to teens who have been formally diagnosed as dysphoric. The rate of regret for those who undergo hormones and surgery is very low.
What has changed with the advent of the "cisnormativity" screamers is the removal of the dysphoria requirement; they call this "medicalizing" a condition which they insist as regarding as a choice that should be unconditionally respected.
This does harm.
One of the ugliest claims of the far right has been that being gay is a choice, by their definition an immoral one, and that any gay person can as easily choose to be straight.
With "trans" the activists take the opposite tact; that "trans" can be chosen, and that's OK.
Except that ... to accept this requires turning an indifferent eye to elective mutilation of people who will outgrow their "trans" beliefs in a few years, albeit missing pieces they were born with.
There is a condition called Body Identity Integrity Disorder in which people convince themselves that one or more of their limbs are cumbersome and unwieldy and seek to have healthy arms or legs amputated. People have even lain a leg across a railroad track (they bled to death in seconds). Some of them manage to find surgeons who will take their money and amputate (sound familiar?). In fact the two disorders are both called dysphorias and are regarded as related.
I don't see a lot of BIID activists screaming about the tyranny of fourlimbnormativity. But the "trans" shit is not far from that.
A quarter century ago there were three hospitals in the entire USA that would perform gender reassignment surgery and qualification was extremely strict: two years living as the other gender, exhaustive psychiatric screening. The great majority was rejected.
Now there are over sixty "gender clinics" and qualification is all but wide open. "I think I might be trans." Get on the table, count down from ten. Activists have manipulated every initially sober medical debate with screams of bigotry (always expressed in some idiotic words that didn't exist a few months ago) and demands that pharmaceutical and surgical intervention begin at ever younger ages.
Steve has written enough about the activists and it is amazing he hasn't gotten that email from Roger (he/him); I got it for saying that a transwoman is biologically male, which is about as controversial as saying the earth orbits the sun. Most of the articles written by "trans" are roiling with rage, these are clearly unbalanced people and by any metric, the gerat majority of those claiming "trans" are solely in it for attention.
TY for Your reply, M Monday.
I'm familiar with all but the TaraElla Project. I'll read her directly. But here's the thing: The folks You mentioned are doing good work but, on balance, they're a drop in the ocean.
I didn't mean to "say" that Steve should *only* write on trans issues. Just that it's important that he adds a drop in the ocean of insanity.
One thing has give me genuine hope recently: the hyper-woke NYT has now run at least 2-3 articles in the past few months that are clearly questioning some of that ocean of insanity that is concerning to many of us here. I do think the tide is turning and the fringe perspectives are increasingly being seen as exactly that, fringe. Right now the shift appears focused on questioning the medicalization of minors (thank God, that is the place where I'd start too), but I can see it going in other directions eventually, like sports.
Or maybe I'm just a glass-half-full kinda guy LOL.
Yeah, glass half-full. :-)
And, yeah, saw a couple of those articles in NYT. Light at end of trans tunnel?
I think Steve mentioned the Matt Walsh video "What is a Woman?" Someone sent me a torrent link and I just finished watching it.
I don't know anything about Walsh, I have read that he is a conservative and there was one disturbing segment where he appeared with scrotum-tanning advocate Tucker Carlson but I found everything he said in the video to be quite reasonable and without any hint of any bigotry of any kind.
ON THE OTHER HAND. The "trans" advocates in the piece were evasive, dishonest, duplicitous, and contemptible. Many of them responded to simple questions with "this interview is over" and it could not have been more obvious that they were wholly unable to defend this beliefs and were totally disconnected from reality.
Many of them claimed that puberty blockers are completely reversible but others noted that the company producing them was sued for nearly a billion dollars, and that they have terrible side effects like osteoporosis, a highly elevated cancer risk, and that there have been no longitudinal studies on them, moreover that all such studies, along with many others on the long term health of those who have been mutilated in some perverse "affirmation," have all been suppressed by "trans" activists and that in some countries to not use some twit's "correct pronouns" is treated by the law with the same severity as brutal physical assault.
I'm trying to keep my anger down but at this point I think a lot of these "trans" activists deserve mob beatings.
Here is the torrent link.
https://thepiratebay0.org/torrent/59590436/What.Is.A.Woman.2022.1080p.H264.AAC.WEBRip.mp4?fbclid=IwAR3HHdelzIBUk_AoFKR6qPNscDzPaKux5XjVB3hmsGTXSCHxR5YO7smIMWQ
That suspension is of course permanent. Some “trans” person called you “transphobic” and Roger (he/him) leapt to its defense,
Over a million to big pharma for every “trans” person and a hell of a lot of them will be sickly all their brief lives.
How fulfilling.
I haven't been on medium in a few weeks, mostly responding to some disgusting software articles, I just checked and there is that red banner. I'm sick of the place. I wasn't writing about "trans" but I think they have an algorithm for detecting banned people on new accounts. I got no email, again.
Sour grapes: the place is nothing like it was a few years ago, not just the "trans" infestation but they publish a lot of truly lousy articles now most of them are not worth the time to read. Not quite down to Quora level yet but getting there.
If you respond to any "trans" article then 100% of your recommendations from then on are more "trans" articles, mostly from enraged and clearly unbalanced people.
Pity. I used to like writing on there, and I made a lot of money.
I wonder ... I was writing a draft article about "trans" and letting it all out, with every expectation of being kicked off as soon as one of the TNs read it. Maybe someone reviews drafts and reported mine to Roger (he/him).
Count me in with the 'let's give trans a rest' for awhile brigade. Unless you find something new to say that isn't necessarily preaching to the choir. Maybe get back to race issues? What's your thought on the potential end of affirmative action via the Supreme Court? Glenn Loury's been weighing in on that recently and I'm paying attention because it affects me too as a woman. Also, if you don't always want to write about race & are tired of trans, how about feminism? There's a lot of similarity and crossover to our respective 'disadvantage' concerns and probably critiques.
I'm surprised you haven't gotten thrown off Medium for being 'transphobic' :)