Some people just aren't ready for the adult table. It's hard to analyze empirical evidence and create reasoned arguments, but it's much easier to dismiss your opponents as evil.
"I don't agree with that police reform idea" gets interpreted as "I don't care about police abuse."
"I don't think that economic policy will work" gets interpreted as "I don't care if poor people starve."
"I don't think that COVID policy passes a cost-benefit analysis" gets interpreted as "I don't care if millions of people die from COVID."
"I don't think that climate policy is optimal" gets interpreted as "I don't think climate change is real."
etc etc. And apparently my mixed views on the Ukraine-Russia conflict make me both a CIA and Putin shill, yet I haven't gotten a check from either? What's up with that?
I don't use Twitter or Reddit for much beyond hockey, board games, and memes at this point, since so few people seem capable of even rudimentary argumentation. What's extra sad is that many of these people have college degrees, which shows the increasing uselessness of those instructions.
I've learned to appreciate libertarianism. I'm not a fan of it's political goals; I'd prefer the median sci-fi dystopia over a libertarian society. However, they've clearly thought it through, and generally have arguments and counter-argument and counter-counter-arguments for their positions. Most political movements can't say the same.
We have given up on evidence based truths, based on outcomes, a long time ago. We now operate in what philosophers call "closed systems"; that is, no possible evidence can negate the truth of the initial premises. All contrary evidence is interpreted under the assumption that the initial premise is true.
In such a system, bad outcomes for child transition will only mean that the transition was not done early enough. We need to start earlier! We haven't invested enough funds in making sure this works! The bad outcomes are only caused by those evil anti-trans people! And on and on...
This is how we have dealt with every obvious failure over the last century. The philosophies and premises are not wrong. The overwhelming evidence that they don't work is really just evidence that these brilliant ideas were not properly implemented. So spend more, start earlier, pass more and more laws and so on. And when they still don't work, of course it can only be due to the moral failings of those who don't agree with the experts who know their ideas are right.
Great piece. It’s so disingenuous to claim opponents of pediatric transition want trans kids to suffer. But it’s such a common line. I don’t know how we will ever sort this out when it has become so politicized.
I wish we could start by acknowledging that, all else equal, it’s not ideal for kids to need hormones and surgery. Just like it’s better to not need chemo or antidepressants or any medical treatment. If a child tells her parents “I want male hormones and surgery” it’s appropriate to not consent unless the parents are 100% sure that the alternative will be worse for the child.
Instead the message is that “Almost no one regrets this” and “If they do it’s not a big deal” and any concerns are just bigotry. They’re asking parents to greenlight a treatment that comes with health risks, loss of fertility, possible sexual dysfunction, a lifetime of medical needs, and there’s just no acknowledgement that reservations are valid.
The push to affirm and transition kids ASAP scares the shit out of parents. Sure, there are conservative types who oppose transition for religious reasons / desire to enforce gender conformity. But a lot of other people are simply terrified of getting it wrong.
I don’t support the Alabama bill. I don’t want legislatures deciding this at all, in either direction. But it’s a reaction to the activist position that says legitimate concerns=hatred.
Apr 10, 2022·edited Apr 10, 2022Liked by The 21st Century Salonnière
Double comment, but they're two different points. Also my comments are amazing so we definitely deserve two of them.
It's so strange how fast new issues become "settled" by each side. I didn't know trans kids existed until like... a year ago. It sounds pretty complicated, and probably involves biology well beyond my understanding (i.e, any biology after 8th grade). How do so many people have strong partisan views on this already?
Amen to this. I've long struggled with good and evil, right vs. wrong. Having a teen claim a trans identity ripped my foundations out from beneath me there for a bit, but I've found my way back to people have "different world views" and I never thought anyone was intentionally hurting children. I do think profit-motive and greed are involved, but I believe most people are trying to support children according to their current understanding of what that means. We desperately need to get better at communicating. What a different world it would be if we knew how to identify and articulate our needs rather than project our junk onto the "other"? I try to keep what you brilliantly worded in my mind when I hear myself getting "righteous":
"Our chronic emotional dysregulation as Americans is incredibly convenient to the plundering class"
Let me offer sincere props here for something that is by its own example a rendering of exactly what is wrong with our whole public discourse on, well, practically everything. And by that, I mean that what's written here is everything our public discourse isn't and everything that it should be.
It isn't a loud, screeching, inflammatory appeal to emotion through misinformation, distortion of facts or outright lies, or a moral indictment of "that other guy that doesn't agree with me". It IS a thoughtful, well-reasoned statement of facts and a well-presented argument for a particular point of view, more than proper in tone and tenor.
Beyond that I don't have much to say, since as noted in a previous comment I'm not all that well informed about "trans issues", since they don't affect me or my family in anything resembling a personal way. I've got no skin in the game, so to speak, beyond my belief that all people are deserving of basic human dignity, concern and respect until they prove that they aren't. And when it comes to kids, anyone who desires to use them as political props for any reason is, in my book, trying really hard to do just that.
For what it's worth, very good work. I will say that I think you're right in that these children's best interests are served by evidence-based truth, not emotionally based fears or biases.
I am late to this party, but I wanted to hop on to say that I am so grateful for you, for your humane and generous tone, and for your wisdom in such a fraught issue. I agree that it is very rare to have true villains; most of us are just muddling along, trying to do our best. Every time a reasonable and eloquent person like you speaks up, you make it easier for the rest of us. Thank you.
Apr 10, 2022·edited Apr 10, 2022Liked by The 21st Century Salonnière
Great article, as always! I've been thinking along similar lines. While I have no question that the irreversible damage being wrought on children in the name of gender ideology is a hideous moral error propagated by the left, it's not the only injustice in the world. Anyone who is passionate about causes such as free speech, human rights, and individual liberty, should also respect the rights of people to live as they choose, worship (or not) as they choose, and believe whatever they want. The problem is that those values are not consistent with the political goals of many people who have or pursue power over the lives of others. That fact confronts those of us who are broadly "gender critical" (or GC) with a serious problem in today's political climate.
As you rightly say, "But just as there are no people on the Right cackling with glee at harming 'trans kids' by denying them 'life-saving' health care, there are no people on the Left calling for 'medical experiments' or 'Mengele style butchery.' Similarly, not everyone on the side of gender ideology, however otherwise misguided they may be, are pedophiles or abuse children."
But the charge of pedophilia has become a Republican talking point and, consciously or not, many in the GC community are falling into a right-wing political trap. This is perhaps one of the most emotionally incendiary charges that politicians can level at their opponents. In terms of political expedience, it barely matters whether it's true, or even whether a shred of evidence can be found to support the charge. Anyone who watched the Senate hearings for Judge Jackson cannot have missed the theme that the GOP was attempting to color her as sympathetic to pedophilia. I've never spoken to her, but I am as near certain as I can be on the basis of trusting my people instincts, that she would be at least as opposed to pedophilia as any of her critics. This was nothing more than a coordinated attempt at politically motivated character assassination.
In the wake of the hearings, GC Twitter was on fire with condemnations of Jackson for failing to "provide the definition of a woman," as Sen. Marsha Blackburn demanded. A careful review of that exchange reveals that Blackburn carefully denied Jackson the opportunity to expand on her initial response, to the effect that definitions carry legal weight and should be precise and that, because she is not a biologist, did not have the exact, legally relevant, wording of such a definition memorized. Perhaps she would have gone on to say something like, "I may not know the definition, but I certainly know what a woman is." We'll never know. But it doesn't matter, because Blackburn, very cleverly, got her sound bite. That single interaction dominated the news about the hearings. The right made political hay.
I am convinced that the rightwing political power elite in the US is *not* broadly committed to women's rights. Why not? Because the most conservative force in political ideology, whether on the right or the left, is patriarchy. The power structures in almost all known societies throughout recorded history have been dominated by men and centered men's needs and interests. Chief among those is the control of the reproductive capabilities of women. That is, to paraphrase Marx, the means of production of the most valuable of all sources of wealth: new human beings. That is ultimately why both church and state have, for so long, been allied against women's reproductive autonomy. Of course, men also want to control women's freedom for other purposes, notably sexual servitude. The rightwing power structure, and in the U.S. that means the Republican political establishment, will never willingly accede to women having full ownership of their own bodies.
The Republicans are commandeering the GC movement (spurred on by the left, who are therefore culpable for the takeover), but they aren't doing so in the interests of women. Those of us who want to safeguard the classical liberal values like free speech and the legal rights ensuring you can live as you want, should be very wary of being coopted by the right.
Of course the worst expression of when we take sides and declare (our fellow human beings) to be evil takes place during warfare between nations. Great time to take note of this reprehensible, but under the circumstances necessary phenomenon. I'm old enough to remember the Wehrmacht belt buckles with their inscribed motto, "Gott Mit Uns".
"Chase Strangio is the person whom I most associate with destroying the reputation of the ACLU (although to be fair, Chase is very vocal but bears only a portion of the blame)."
So, if Chase Strangio is not one of Those People Over There and he's not Bad Guy, what is he?
Some people just aren't ready for the adult table. It's hard to analyze empirical evidence and create reasoned arguments, but it's much easier to dismiss your opponents as evil.
"I don't agree with that police reform idea" gets interpreted as "I don't care about police abuse."
"I don't think that economic policy will work" gets interpreted as "I don't care if poor people starve."
"I don't think that COVID policy passes a cost-benefit analysis" gets interpreted as "I don't care if millions of people die from COVID."
"I don't think that climate policy is optimal" gets interpreted as "I don't think climate change is real."
etc etc. And apparently my mixed views on the Ukraine-Russia conflict make me both a CIA and Putin shill, yet I haven't gotten a check from either? What's up with that?
I don't use Twitter or Reddit for much beyond hockey, board games, and memes at this point, since so few people seem capable of even rudimentary argumentation. What's extra sad is that many of these people have college degrees, which shows the increasing uselessness of those instructions.
I've learned to appreciate libertarianism. I'm not a fan of it's political goals; I'd prefer the median sci-fi dystopia over a libertarian society. However, they've clearly thought it through, and generally have arguments and counter-argument and counter-counter-arguments for their positions. Most political movements can't say the same.
We have given up on evidence based truths, based on outcomes, a long time ago. We now operate in what philosophers call "closed systems"; that is, no possible evidence can negate the truth of the initial premises. All contrary evidence is interpreted under the assumption that the initial premise is true.
In such a system, bad outcomes for child transition will only mean that the transition was not done early enough. We need to start earlier! We haven't invested enough funds in making sure this works! The bad outcomes are only caused by those evil anti-trans people! And on and on...
This is how we have dealt with every obvious failure over the last century. The philosophies and premises are not wrong. The overwhelming evidence that they don't work is really just evidence that these brilliant ideas were not properly implemented. So spend more, start earlier, pass more and more laws and so on. And when they still don't work, of course it can only be due to the moral failings of those who don't agree with the experts who know their ideas are right.
Great piece. It’s so disingenuous to claim opponents of pediatric transition want trans kids to suffer. But it’s such a common line. I don’t know how we will ever sort this out when it has become so politicized.
I wish we could start by acknowledging that, all else equal, it’s not ideal for kids to need hormones and surgery. Just like it’s better to not need chemo or antidepressants or any medical treatment. If a child tells her parents “I want male hormones and surgery” it’s appropriate to not consent unless the parents are 100% sure that the alternative will be worse for the child.
Instead the message is that “Almost no one regrets this” and “If they do it’s not a big deal” and any concerns are just bigotry. They’re asking parents to greenlight a treatment that comes with health risks, loss of fertility, possible sexual dysfunction, a lifetime of medical needs, and there’s just no acknowledgement that reservations are valid.
The push to affirm and transition kids ASAP scares the shit out of parents. Sure, there are conservative types who oppose transition for religious reasons / desire to enforce gender conformity. But a lot of other people are simply terrified of getting it wrong.
I don’t support the Alabama bill. I don’t want legislatures deciding this at all, in either direction. But it’s a reaction to the activist position that says legitimate concerns=hatred.
Double comment, but they're two different points. Also my comments are amazing so we definitely deserve two of them.
It's so strange how fast new issues become "settled" by each side. I didn't know trans kids existed until like... a year ago. It sounds pretty complicated, and probably involves biology well beyond my understanding (i.e, any biology after 8th grade). How do so many people have strong partisan views on this already?
Amen to this. I've long struggled with good and evil, right vs. wrong. Having a teen claim a trans identity ripped my foundations out from beneath me there for a bit, but I've found my way back to people have "different world views" and I never thought anyone was intentionally hurting children. I do think profit-motive and greed are involved, but I believe most people are trying to support children according to their current understanding of what that means. We desperately need to get better at communicating. What a different world it would be if we knew how to identify and articulate our needs rather than project our junk onto the "other"? I try to keep what you brilliantly worded in my mind when I hear myself getting "righteous":
"Our chronic emotional dysregulation as Americans is incredibly convenient to the plundering class"
Let me offer sincere props here for something that is by its own example a rendering of exactly what is wrong with our whole public discourse on, well, practically everything. And by that, I mean that what's written here is everything our public discourse isn't and everything that it should be.
It isn't a loud, screeching, inflammatory appeal to emotion through misinformation, distortion of facts or outright lies, or a moral indictment of "that other guy that doesn't agree with me". It IS a thoughtful, well-reasoned statement of facts and a well-presented argument for a particular point of view, more than proper in tone and tenor.
Beyond that I don't have much to say, since as noted in a previous comment I'm not all that well informed about "trans issues", since they don't affect me or my family in anything resembling a personal way. I've got no skin in the game, so to speak, beyond my belief that all people are deserving of basic human dignity, concern and respect until they prove that they aren't. And when it comes to kids, anyone who desires to use them as political props for any reason is, in my book, trying really hard to do just that.
For what it's worth, very good work. I will say that I think you're right in that these children's best interests are served by evidence-based truth, not emotionally based fears or biases.
I am late to this party, but I wanted to hop on to say that I am so grateful for you, for your humane and generous tone, and for your wisdom in such a fraught issue. I agree that it is very rare to have true villains; most of us are just muddling along, trying to do our best. Every time a reasonable and eloquent person like you speaks up, you make it easier for the rest of us. Thank you.
Great article, as always! I've been thinking along similar lines. While I have no question that the irreversible damage being wrought on children in the name of gender ideology is a hideous moral error propagated by the left, it's not the only injustice in the world. Anyone who is passionate about causes such as free speech, human rights, and individual liberty, should also respect the rights of people to live as they choose, worship (or not) as they choose, and believe whatever they want. The problem is that those values are not consistent with the political goals of many people who have or pursue power over the lives of others. That fact confronts those of us who are broadly "gender critical" (or GC) with a serious problem in today's political climate.
As you rightly say, "But just as there are no people on the Right cackling with glee at harming 'trans kids' by denying them 'life-saving' health care, there are no people on the Left calling for 'medical experiments' or 'Mengele style butchery.' Similarly, not everyone on the side of gender ideology, however otherwise misguided they may be, are pedophiles or abuse children."
But the charge of pedophilia has become a Republican talking point and, consciously or not, many in the GC community are falling into a right-wing political trap. This is perhaps one of the most emotionally incendiary charges that politicians can level at their opponents. In terms of political expedience, it barely matters whether it's true, or even whether a shred of evidence can be found to support the charge. Anyone who watched the Senate hearings for Judge Jackson cannot have missed the theme that the GOP was attempting to color her as sympathetic to pedophilia. I've never spoken to her, but I am as near certain as I can be on the basis of trusting my people instincts, that she would be at least as opposed to pedophilia as any of her critics. This was nothing more than a coordinated attempt at politically motivated character assassination.
In the wake of the hearings, GC Twitter was on fire with condemnations of Jackson for failing to "provide the definition of a woman," as Sen. Marsha Blackburn demanded. A careful review of that exchange reveals that Blackburn carefully denied Jackson the opportunity to expand on her initial response, to the effect that definitions carry legal weight and should be precise and that, because she is not a biologist, did not have the exact, legally relevant, wording of such a definition memorized. Perhaps she would have gone on to say something like, "I may not know the definition, but I certainly know what a woman is." We'll never know. But it doesn't matter, because Blackburn, very cleverly, got her sound bite. That single interaction dominated the news about the hearings. The right made political hay.
I am convinced that the rightwing political power elite in the US is *not* broadly committed to women's rights. Why not? Because the most conservative force in political ideology, whether on the right or the left, is patriarchy. The power structures in almost all known societies throughout recorded history have been dominated by men and centered men's needs and interests. Chief among those is the control of the reproductive capabilities of women. That is, to paraphrase Marx, the means of production of the most valuable of all sources of wealth: new human beings. That is ultimately why both church and state have, for so long, been allied against women's reproductive autonomy. Of course, men also want to control women's freedom for other purposes, notably sexual servitude. The rightwing power structure, and in the U.S. that means the Republican political establishment, will never willingly accede to women having full ownership of their own bodies.
The Republicans are commandeering the GC movement (spurred on by the left, who are therefore culpable for the takeover), but they aren't doing so in the interests of women. Those of us who want to safeguard the classical liberal values like free speech and the legal rights ensuring you can live as you want, should be very wary of being coopted by the right.
Of course the worst expression of when we take sides and declare (our fellow human beings) to be evil takes place during warfare between nations. Great time to take note of this reprehensible, but under the circumstances necessary phenomenon. I'm old enough to remember the Wehrmacht belt buckles with their inscribed motto, "Gott Mit Uns".
"Chase Strangio is the person whom I most associate with destroying the reputation of the ACLU (although to be fair, Chase is very vocal but bears only a portion of the blame)."
So, if Chase Strangio is not one of Those People Over There and he's not Bad Guy, what is he?