Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Gender Non-Conformity Cop-Out
I’ve been thinking about this post for a few days, but what prompted me to write it now, rather than this coming weekend, is a delightfully wrong-headed piece by our very own and much-loved Fred Cole. So, while this isn’t a rebuttal to Fred’s piece, I’ll nonetheless dedicate it to him.
To Fred
There. On with the show.
My argument is that transgender individuals are, by and large, being lazy and rude, and we do them a disservice if we don’t correct that behavior. Let me explain.
There are only a relative handful of people who are actually sexually ambiguous. A tiny fraction of them are biologically ambiguous, true hermaphrodites having both male and female genitalia. The rest are outliers on the natural scale of masculine and feminine morphology: men with fine bones, delicate features, high voices; women with heavier bones, more rugged features, deeper voices. For the most part, people who are outliers can still present themselves as their correct sex; a relative few may prefer to either remain ambiguous or simply present themselves as the opposite sex.
This isn’t new. There have always been effeminate men and masculine women. They haven’t always been treated well, and I think that’s something which really does call for compassion and courtesy.
That doesn’t explain Caitlyn Jenner*, nor the young lady who works at my local hardware store sporting a button which reads “My pronouns are: he/him/his.” Nor does it explain most of the newly sexually ambiguous, all the men and women, boys and girls, who are perfectly obviously identifiable by their true sex, but who would rather be identified as something else.
What does explain these people? Various things, I’m sure: some undoubtedly enjoy the attention, others get a thrill out of the cross-dressing and role playing, still others are dissatisfied and hope a dramatic change will improve their lives.
But I think most of the “gender non-conforming” are simply being lazy.
Non-conformity has always been a cover for laziness: nonconformity means that the normal rules don’t apply to you, and you don’t have to live up to other people’s expectations or standards. It means exempting yourself from judgment, not playing the same game as everyone else, not being measured by their yardsticks and possibly found wanting.
Tune in, turn out, drop out. Because if you aren’t in the rat race, you don’t have to run — and you can’t lose.
Live Up to Your Sex
Men and women really are different, both in terms of their physical capacities and their emotional natures. Men and women want different things; they are biologically primed to value different things. They have different strengths and vulnerabilities. Why? Because gestation. Because a man can have a thousand children and never think twice, but a woman can’t have a single one without devoting a substantial fraction of her life to it.
I hope this isn’t news, that evolution has produced two very different creatures in men and women, and that five years of Gender Studies at UC Berkeley, no matter how confusing, can’t unmake what adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine have quietly conspired to create.
The phrase “be a man” means something. It means do the hard thing without complaining. Don’t leave it to someone weaker and more vulnerable to do what a lifetime of testosterone has prepared you to do. Step up, man up, do it, and move on.
We don’t really have a similar phrase for women: it isn’t a matter of honor for a woman to “be a woman,” not in the same sense. Women are weaker, and aren’t expected to be heroic, to come through in a clinch, as men are. Less feminine woman have rarely been the target of (unkind, I admit) mirth in the same way that effeminate men have been. But we still have expectations of women: that they’ll be more sensitive and nurturing than men, that they’ll possess an aesthetic sense lacking in the coarser half of the species, that they’ll be more civilized and refined, less vulgar and, in general, less physical.
The point is that there are standards for being a man or a woman. There are expectations, and people are to varying degrees judged by how well they meet those standards. It isn’t particularly fair, but there it is: if you’re a man, you’re expected to behave like a man and we’ll tend to think less of you if you don’t; if you’re a woman, we’d like you to act like one. You’re one or the other and, while we know you didn’t get to pick which, you’re stuck with it: play the hand you’re dealt and try to do it well.
That’s how it’s supposed to work. But that takes effort, and effort is… hard. If you offer people an alternative to effort, they’ll be tempted to take it, even if it leads to a mediocre and sub-par life. (That’s part of evolution too, unfortunately.) So if you tell young people that they can be “gender nonconforming,” and that that’s natural and no big deal and perfectly okay — cool even — then some are going to see that as a nice way of avoiding the burden of rising to sexual expectations, of being manly if they’re male, or appropriately feminine if they’re female. Nonconformity means not having to try, and never falling short.
It isn’t brave, it isn’t wise, and it isn’t a path to a good, full life. But, increasingly, it’s safe and easy.
Let’s encourage our young men to be men and our young women to be women, and not indulge the temptation to seek an easy end-run around traditional and sensible standards of masculine and feminine behavior. Let’s stop pretending that gender is other than sex, and that it’s a choice — or that non-conformity is, usually, other than lazy self-indulgence.
* Caitlyn Jenner is his legal name, and I’m happy to call him that. It’s a silly name for a man, but then he’s a silly man.
Published in Culture
I learn so much here.
That was not Lady Bracknell’s point at all.
I didn’t watch the clip. I was alluding to your earlier comment.
A person who is ruthless toward a man or woman because of his appearance, but claims to be a conservative in the sense we use it here, is a hypocrite.
We Modern Conservatives and all the others under the same good-sized ideological tent, whatever it be called, explicitly reject such behaviour as ungodly and therefore unacceptable.
I think you may have been misled by the progressivists’ initiatives to corrupt the language and interfere with the ability of society to communicate rational public arguments exposing their fallacies and intentions, and defend the American way.
Please accept my apologies for causing personal offense. I need some guidance on how to address this issue.
You made the point (in #52 above) that the trans and gay issues are analogous. You identified the important question of “who gets to decide” (in #68 above), and suggested that it should be affected individuals and their doctors.
My point was that I do not trust the psychological or psychiatric professions. I do not mean every professional, but the professions are very heavily tilted to the left.
Homosexuality was once classified by the American Psychological Association as a mental disorder. This was changed in a series of decisions starting in in 1973. I stated that I believe that this decision was political and radical, which I think is correct (radical for 1973; not radical today). This does not mean that it was correct or incorrect.
Part of me wants to say that I’m not qualified to determine what is, or is not, a “disorder.” The problem is, I’m not sure that anyone is specially qualified to do so. I looked at the professional definitions, and they don’t seem helpful. We seem to be in a situation analogous to Potter Stewart’s “I know it when I see it” territory.
The same “disorder” issue is occurring with respect to the core of the “trans” group that you refer to (in #133) as “the people who – whichever sex they are – feel that they are the opposite.” I think that the current term for this is “gender dysphoria,” and that it was previously called “gender identity disorder” until 2013. (Wikipedia here.) This change in terminology also appears to be politically motivated on the part of the American Psychiatric Association (the change is in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition, called the DSM-5, Wikipedia here).
This actually presented a serious problem in the DSM-5, because if they don’t call it a “disorder,” treatment might not be covered. Well, the word “disorder” is no longer used, but it’s in the manual of “Mental Disorders.”
Which gets us back to your objection to the use of the term “disorder.”
I’m troubled by the idea that, in order to engage in discussion with you, I am not allowed to criticize the APA’s 1973 decision. I can certainly drop it for now, as this discussion is principally about trans issues. But what do I do if a trans person won’t engage in discussion because it’s insulting to use the term “disorder,” even though it still appears to be an official disorder?
Weren’t adolescents silly and known for doing patently absurd things long before the “gender diversity” movement? When you’re talking about the young and ignorant, that’s just sort of baked in I think. Some of what you’re objecting to strikes me as no more bothersome than purple hair and nose rings. Dumb, but harmless and stuff they’ll grow out of. Now obviously that doesn’t necessarily apply to someone who gets a surgical intervention. But is the college sophomore who just declares himself a pansexual forest fairy really any more of a problem than the one who dresses in black and puts mascara on his eyes and calls himself a Goth?
No, he isn’t, as long as we aren’t obligated to pretend that he’s “normal,” or to in any way take his silliness seriously.
As long as we’re allowed to roll our eyes and say “kids will be kids, but they’d better grow out of it before they go looking for a job,” this stuff isn’t really much of a problem. As long as other kids aren’t cowed by university faculty and administration into pretending that pansexual forest fairies are real, and that it’s perfectly natural for a young man to think he is one, we’re fine.
As long as the law doesn’t require us to pretend to respect it, and the university doesn’t lend it inappropriate legitimacy by saying to every entering freshman “if you would prefer to be addressed as a pansexual forest fairy, please check here,” then everything’s okay: social pressure will encourage the pansexual forest fairies to grow up and stop being ridiculous.
But if we make a big concerted effort to pretend that this stuff is real, and if the message delivered to young people — who are, after all, not known for their judgment, thoughtfulness, nor perspective — is that we don’t dare criticize the fanciful or simply incorrect sexual self-identification of anyone else for fear of being labeled a hateful bigot, then yes, that’s a problem. Because, even after they grow out of the forest fairy stage, they will still be walking around thinking that it’s a valid choice for someone to make, and not the silliness it is.
Often it’s helpful to break down problems into their component parts. I’d distinguish between the adolescent pansexual forest fairy and the person who’s persistently struggled with transsexualism to the point where they’ve made the choice to transition. Yes, drawing the line between who’s an adolescent idiot and who’s a real transsexual might be difficult in the current environment. I, for example, have no patience for any “gender” other than male and female even while I’m tolerant (accepting) of the small group of persons who feel the need to transition from the one to the other. I think all of the other 57 flavors are adolescent nonsense that exist nowhere but on college campuses and that all of it will be forgotten in a generation. But transexualism as a phenomenon has persisted and appears to me to be real and in need of addressing as a matter of adjusting social norms to eliminate stigma relating to it.
Indeed. And from the very beginning — including in the original post — I’ve distinguished between the few who have actual physiological challenges and the far larger number who don’t. You and I disagree about the proportion of the larger group who have an actual probelm — that “persistent struggle” that makes a comfortable life very difficult. I think they’re a small part; I think you think otherwise.
But here’s something to think about. Why is the “trans” movement such a big deal, politically? Why do we have such a crazy proliferation of pronouns, and why is it suddenly such a high-profile movement?
Why aren’t agoraphobia, schizophrenia, and a host of other more common conditions the subject of so much public attention?
I think it’s because so-called “gender diversity” is empowering. It let’s people break free of social norms and do their own thing. But it’s only empowering if you can’t be laughed at for it; you’re only free of social norms if no one is allowed to treat you like you’re being silly.
It’s a far bigger movement than those suffering from sexual self-identification problems could possibly justify. We don’t need federal bathroom laws to deal with that small population.
Gender diversity is a new entitlement program, a don’t-judge-me card anyone can play to opt out of society’s expectations without facing any real consequences.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think that the Catholic Church (as distinct from individual Catholics) refers to homosexuals as disordered. I believe the Church refers to sodomy (actually all sexual acts which are not marital p/v intercourse) as disordered. It’s the specific physical act, not the steady state attractions of people.
To your next point, I understand how the distinction isn’t ameliorating. I also understand that the implications for people who can not or will not be into p/v intercourse are grim if they are otherwise open to belief and Church teaching. It’s a tough hand to be dealt and some tough decisions to be made. Last, and I will bow out after this so as not to hijack the thread or cause offense where none is intended, I also understand that my understanding probably doesn’t mean much as long as I hold to the Church teaching still.
I think it part we’re both asking ourselves what the future is going to look like. I am convinced the nonsense will slip into the background and we’ll be left with a real population of transsexuals. That they have suddenly become important is a product of the fact that they are stigmatized and, like previously stigmatized groups before them, we’re realizing that that stigma is unfair and unkind. I actually think the adolescent nonsense is probably doing that demographic a disservice by making it possible to conflate the nonsense with their legitimate interests.
See, now, I just don’t think it’s possible to opt out of society’s expectations without facing any real consequences.
There will be consequences. They will be real. In a society with a generous safety net, they are unlikely to include starvation, absence of shelter, or basic medical care (although if we’re being really honest, there are folks who manage to let themselves become marginalized enough to have trouble securing even those).
We’ve all met some lucky bastards who seem to have gamed the system to get way better than they deserve. Part of that’s dumb luck, but part of it is these lucky bastards do meet some of society’s expectations. For example, the charming grifter has opted out of some of society’s expectations, but not others, else he couldn’t be charming.
Are consequences immediate enough that they help people correct their behavior before it’s too late? Well, now that is a different question.
Depression is a disorder. If I describe someone as suffering from depression am I insulting them?
Since you anticipated my response, especially what I’ve highlighted, I’ll leave it at that.
Fair enough. The word can be used in different ways. To apply it involuntarily to a person who does not perceive him/herself as suffering from a disorder in any way shape or form, however, is an insult.
I’m requesting a truce on this issue.
We’re managing a serious and helpful discussion on one of the most politically and emotionally difficult topics in our current politics. I wrote something that Cato took as insulting, and I apologized. I understand his sensitivity to homosexuality being classified as a “disorder.” I know the history of the time, in the 1960s and early 1970s, when homosexuals were subjected to court-ordered electroshock therapy. I hope, but do not know, that this was offered as an elective alternative to a criminal suspect, as treatment in lieu of imprisonment, because this would be slightly less dreadful. Either way, it was bad, which is why I made the point that I oppose criminalization of homosexuality.
We haven’t even been able to define “disorder” in a useful way, and I don’t think that the professionals have done so, either, except in the most tautological way. Something like: “A disorder is a psychological or psychiatric condition that warrants treatment.” I think that we can make progress in addressing the core of the trans issue — gender dysphoria — which will probably require more detailed consideration of what would constitute a “disorder.” I think that we can do so without further discussion of homosexuality, which I think would be more helpful, most importantly because I find Cato’s insights in this thread to be helpful and enlightening, as he has a perspective that I lack.
I hope that you’re right, but I’m skeptical. I think that people are more malleable than you think, so I’m much more sympathetic to Henry’s concern that if we change social norms to accommodate a small number of nonconformists, we will end up with many more people in that category.
Our different views of this point appear to lead us to different conclusions about what to do. You are concerned about “stigma” and want to be more accepting. This makes sense, if gender dysphoria is an inherent condition without effective treatment. On the other hand, if it is not inherent or is treatable, or both, then there are good reasons to maintain social norms, which will necessarily involve some sort of “stigma.”
Stigma is not always a bad thing. If I were an alcoholic, stigma would be appropriate. If I were still living in my parents’ basement, playing video games all day, stigma would be appropriate.
Regarding prevalence of gender dysphoria, I found two reports of the same figures, on Wikipedia (here; go to the “Epidemiology” section) and at the Psychology Today website (here).
The overall average of these estimates is 0.006%, or about 1:17,000.
According to this survey from 2016, 0.58% of US adults “identify as transgender.”
If these figures are correct, then people with true gender dysphoria are only about 0.6% to 1.5% of those identifying as transgender. Conversely, this implies that over 98% of people identifying as transgender to not have gender dysphoria.
I’m not sure whether this precisely matches up with Cato’s comment (#192 above) about “the nonsense [that] will slip into the background” and the “real population of transsexuals” that will remain. I agree about these two categories (though I am less sanguine about the nonsense slipping into the background). The statistics above suggest that 98-99% of what is currently going on is “the nonsense.”
I am sympathetic to the very small number, and very small percentage, of people with genuine gender dysphoria. I am skeptical that anything will help people with such a severe psychological condition. I am concerned that normalization of transgenderism, while it may help the roughly 1-2% of transgender people with real gender dysphoria, will harm the 98-99% of other people identifying as transgender, and probably even increase their number. These effects might be worse on children (sorry, I do not have time, at the moment, to look into the statistics regarding childhood experimentation with gender identity).
I have to check out of the discussion, and want to thank everyone for their insights.
I agree completely. I just very much doubt that there’s a “treatment” for “gender dysphoria” that’s an improvement on letting trans people do what they want – transition.
And maybe it doesn’t need to be said but I concede a whole bunch of other questions arise when we’re talking about minors, or their parents, making these decisions. I’m talking about the comparatively “easy” question of the competent adult.
I don’t have a lot of confidence in the number of diagnoses of gender dysphoria being very meaningful. I just don’t have that level of confidence in the psychiatric profession. Nor do I think everyone in the demographic necessarily seeks a diagnosis. I do think you’re right that the numbers who “identify as transgender” probably include a lot of what I called “the nonsense.” But with a numerator (diagnoses of dysphoria) that I think pretty unrelated to the real number of people in the demographic, I’m not sure you can make that much of the ratio of the two.
Edit: That’s not to say this isn’t the best data available. It may be. I still don’t consider it definitive, or even very reliable.
I can’t quite agree with that, though I can empathize with those to whom “disorder” has been applied in a hurtful way. I’m just not willing to make a blanket statement that, for example, certain addictions, self-destructive compulsions, forms of dementia, etc., aren’t “disorders” simply because the subject doesn’t think of it as a disorder.
I know that probably sounds like I’m picking nits, but it actually relates to a small theme running through our conversation. A big part of my concern about the gender diversity movement has to do with its impact on a class of people who are not prepared to make competent decisions about a host of life choices, and so need the framework provided by culture and tradition.
I’m talking about young people — high school and college age mostly. My principle concern is not and never has been the tiny number of people who are deeply troubled, emotionally or physically, by their own sex. Rather, it’s the much larger population that will embrace gender diversity for fun, for escape, or because they actually think there’s a kind of “justice” in letting people choose their own sex.
The cost of that is a further breaking down of something I value highly: norms of male and female sexual behavior. And the cost of that is, I believe, increasing dissatisfaction in relationships, weaker families, more children growing up without competent male and female role models, and a lot of dishonesty about just how men and women differ and the reality of human sexuality.
If I thought this was not primarily a radical social movement, I’d take a different position. I have always broadly supported gay rights precisely because I think it addresses a specific and real need experienced by a significant number of people. I don’t believe that about the current gender diversity movement.
‘Many Eastern cultures’ is pure weasel.
Doesn’t this whole issue, like so many other current progressive causes, come down, fundamentally, to whether “feelings” ought to rule over other considerations? Someone feels that an action was racially motivated. Or feels threatened by ideas. Or feels offended by a joke in an elevator. Or feels like whatever obstacles they face are due to discrimination of some sort. Or feels that they are a different gender. And the left’s answer to all of these issues is that feelings = reality (as long as the feelings comport with progressive ideas about subverting traditional norms).
Homosexuality is a fine example of an area in which atypical feelings have very little if any negative wider impact, because that issue is more or less isolated to the feelings themselves: how two people feel about each other, within their private negotiation. I think what many of us object to, on a very basic level, are cases in which feelings, which are not reliable, are used to contort reality: feelings leading to potentially harmful medical procedures, feelings leading to complicated changes in laws and language, feelings which are used to dominate others. These are changes which, unlike the motivating feelings, may not be reversible.
Many horrible things have been accomplished in the name of feelings, and our system of government, to work at its most fair, should be largely agnostic about what anybody feels at any given time. Feelings are great for individuals, but they do not clarify systems, they corrupt systems.