Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
[Context: Following the original discussion of Tabby’s question with interest, trying to ignore the perv symposium.]
People suggest all kinds of possible explanations and viewpoints, but one thing is never dealt with in these what-is-going-on-with-the-left questions: Who or what do you think is acting? Is there top-down guidance? Does their mutual insanity emerge from individual nutcases amplified by internet connectivity?
There comes a moment in a little boy’s life when he no longer goes into the women’s room with Mum for a shower after swimming, but has to go to the men’s room on his own.
He’s male both before and after that point, but something happens that changes things.
We don’t call growing up changing genders, but in a functional way that child goes from gender neutral (or gender lite?) to gender specific when it comes to the showers – even if he hasn’t hit puberty. (Which he probably hasn’t….yet.)
So these spaces are not organised by just sex (because if they were he could never have gone in with Mum) but, I argue, by gender (and it’s shadow, sexuality).
It’s absolutely about the boy’s (assumed) sexuality and the comfort and ease of the women there.
Biology is fact.
I’ll repeat, again, that I don’t think homosexuality and transgenderism are the same sort of thing. The gay and lesbian people I know and love really did and do ask only to be left alone to live their lives and form their families as they wish. In many ways, paradoxically, it was a demand for the form of privacy provided by the disinterest of others in the details of their intimate lives.
This is paradoxical, of course, given the over-the-top exhibitionism of “liberated” gay (especially male) culture. We’ve had discussions, here at Ricochet, about the “Pride” in gay pride; when a group is shamed for its difference, one reaction is to fearfully conceal the difference and another is to flaunt it, defiantly. This strategy is not confined to sexual minorities; think of Angela Davis’ afro, or the adoption of the N-word by black Americans as an edgy marker of defiant belonging. In a healthy (ish) society, things eventually settle down into a revised normal. Gay and lesbian persons or couples are an ordinary feature of life in just about every American community, and in general aren’t any more ridiculous or flamboyant than the guy who proudly flaunts his membership in the cult of Harley Davidson, or the neurotic environmentalist who makes sure we can see that he recycles gum wrappers and weeps for felled trees. I tend to like eccentrics and am entertained and often enlightened by all the creative ways a free people pursue happiness. But the gay couple, the Harley guy and the enviro-nut is not insisting that everyone around them applaud, let alone fund, their eccentricities. Where arguments arise, these revolve around generally-accepted rights, responsibilities and costs (financial and social). Does Harley guy expect me to pay for his tube feeding and Depends after he drives his helmet-less head into the asphalt? Does enviro-dude insist that we pay for, attend and applaud his annual funeral service for discarded Christmas trees? Does the gay couple down the road insist that the local Muslim family invite them their Eid party, or that the children are taught Village People songs in music class?
With at least two (at last count) transgendered persons in my intimate circle, folks I’ve known well both before and after the announcements of new identity, I am strongly in favor of thoughtfulness and compassion. And that is more or less what these two persons have received from those around them, with the usual exception of rude and stupid people who will abuse anyone they can get away with abusing— not a group any civilized society wishes to encourage. That, by the way, is the part of the LGBT movement I am absolutely on board with.
What worries me—both for these loved ones and for the wider society—is that the demands of the activist are different in kind from the demands of lesbians and gays, for the obvious reason that transgenderism is not the same as homosexuality.
The activists simultaneously declare that being transgendered is intolerably painful and must be addressed socially, medically and surgically without delay ( with such “care” being provided at public expense when necessary) and also that it is “normal” and part of the ordinary and ineluctable spectrum of human anatomy, physiology and neurology. These are, if I may say so, mutually exclusive claims. And yet the activists demand that all of us accept and affirm both propositions, right down to teaching this confusing mess to pre=schoolers.
Paradox is the language of religion, not science (“Jesus was fully human and fully divine”). To claim that there is a “self” so completely independent of the body that it can have a different sex from that body is a faith claim and is thus impossible to either prove or refute, nor should it be imposed upon the population at large however painful their resistance to it’s obvious, transcendent truth might be.
If it isn’t religion, then the phenomenon of transgenderism must be subject to the scrutiny of science without pre-conditions. And, indeed, my guess is that—whatever is happening with gay marriage in thirty years—transgenderism will be recognized as a painful, treatable symptom of one or more underlying mental disorders.
Perhaps, as someone else said, after the activists are done using it as a sledgehammer to “deconstruct” the society they are determined to raze and replace. (Or maybe just raze?)
Interesting point. FWIW, I’m not sure I ever went in the bathroom with “mum” (we called her “mom”). But I’m sure that’s common in some places. Anyway, I take your point that we treat young children as though they didn’t count to some degree in sex/gender segregated situations. We do it for “sexual” things generally. I did, as most people I know did, run around the yard or the neighborhood or the pool naked at some point. Most people I know have kid pictures buck naked. Everybody laughs and thinks it’s cute. If I did that as an adult I’d be arrested. Kids undeveloped sexual organs are just unthreatening in the way that adults are.
I’m not sure that means our bathrooms aren’t sex segregated though, at least among all but the very young.
In short, I think you’ve added food for thought about the “what should we do” question, but I don’t think you’ve dispositively resolved it.
I think that transgenderism is not about a psychological condition. I think that it is about most so-called transgendered individuals rejecting reasonable expectations that society places on them, playing a bullying power game, and/or claiming a characteristic that gives them enormous privilege.
I’d appreciate anyone with more information about the facts. It appears that the incidence of true gender dysphoria ranges from 0.002% to 0.014% or lower (Wikipedia, here) — that’s between 1 in 7,000 and 1 in 50,000. However, in GLAAD’s 2017 “Accelerating Acceptance” report (here), 12% of people aged 18-34 identified as “transgender or gender nonconforming.” The figures were lower for older groups –6% among 35-51 year-olds, 3% for those 52 and up.
Even using the highest figure for the incidence of gender dysphoria (0.014%), this indicates that among self-reported “transgender or gender nonconforming” people aged 18-34, only about 1 in 850 actually has gender dysphoria.
Further, the Brown University study (here) demonstrated a phenomenon of “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” which spread by “peer contagion.” “Peer contagion” is apparently not a new concept; rather, as I understand it, it previously applied to psychological disorders such as anorexia and bulimia. The Brown study was particularly interesting in finding evidence that such newly-announced trans teenagers would insist that they had always been trans, through much evidence indicated that this was not true — one even altered her diary to make it appear that she had always felt that she was trans. The study also reported that many of the teen groups in question belonged to social groups that mocked people who were not LGBTetc.
It certainly seems plausible to me that acceptance of deviancy will result in a higher incidence of deviancy, and that this effect will be further exacerbated if the deviancy is actively rewarded.
In a recent talk, Jordan Peterson discussed the “genderfluid” claim, in which a person’s claimed gender identity can change on a day-to-day basis. He said that it was the thinking of a 2-year-old, which he meant “technically” — that is, he wasn’t being insulting, he was pointing out that an insistence on having one’s own way, and an inability to negotiate and accommodate one’s behavior to the views and expectations of others, is characteristic of 2-year-olds and is something that most children learn at the age of 3.
I don’t deny the possibility of some genuine gender dysphoria, but the numbers above indicate that about 99.8-99.9% of the whole trans phenomenon is something else, and it looks to me like behavior characteristic of poorly adjusted adolescents, if not toddlers. It is very strange.
Maybe. Or maybe it’s more indicative of how people react to radical change.
Also, I don’t think society views gay the same as they do trans. Perhaps these had been lumped together at some point in time, but even then I think the difference was qualitative. One was a deviant while the other was flat out mentally ill.
Today I wouldn’t say tat those experiencing gender dysmorphia are mentally ill, but I would say that they have a condition that needs treatment one way or the other. Generally I lean against body alteration as treatment. Either way they have a tough life ahead, and the suicide rates seem to bear that out.
Seems obvious to me. Big difference. You know who you are and you don’t need anything except to be left alone. Trans people maybe know who they are, maybe, but they definitely need things whether physical treatment, psychological treatment, to be found attractive in the way and by the people they want to find them attractive.
I can’t specifically address the homosexual people that you have known, but the recent trend in homosexual activism is not a desire to be left alone. It is a demand to be accepted and celebrated, up to an including the institution of marriage, which is considered quite sacred by some of us. It is an insistence that those who disagree must be marginalized and punished, with social ostracism, loss of employment, and destruction of one’s business.
This is not tolerance. It is ironic that my view is considered anathema and that I am unwelcome in polite society, at least from the Leftist-activist perspective, and that they wish to exclude and persecute me in the name of tolerance and inclusivity.
Which brings us back to sort of apparent paradox presented by the OP.
I do recall accepting this type of reasoning, once, during my freshman year in college in a discussion of Evangelical Christianity. One of my friends, a baptist kid from Texas, stated that Jesus was the only path to eternal life. At the time, I was an unbeliever, and this infuriated me (and several others). We self-righteously declared that he was “intolerant,” and that we would “tolerate everything except intolerance. I am a bit embarrassed to confess to such muddle-headed thinking, though in my defense I was only 17 or 18 years old. I think that it was prompted by my natural aversion to the Gospel.
Yes. I think this goes back to the academic idea that “essentialism” is a mortal sin. Once existentialists like Sartre said that since there is no Creator there can be no purpose or telos for humans life (unlike, say, pencil sharpeners) and “Man makes himself” became dogma, the post-modernists were in a position to broaden the claim even to the reduction of “truth” to “narrative.” Of course the feminists needed to get rid of essential differences in favor of merely constructed ones in their quest to achieve “equality” (not equal RIGHTS) or as Andrew Klavan thinks, their quest to become masculine. Too sad, really.
Racial civil rights wasn’t about self-definition. It was about real oppression. Laws on the books restricting full participation in civil society and restricting civil society from welcoming full participation.
I disagree that that’s what SSM was about, but I understand the argument in that line. No need to rehash it here ;D Homosexuality more broadly? Yes it was a fight for full participation in civil society too.
Neither of those necessitated a radical redefinition of biological realities with – still – near universal acceptance. White supremacists and other identitarians might disagree with me here to say that society had to abandon thoughts about biological differences among races having potentially more than a negligible effect on culture and consequences.
Can trans people not participate in civil society? Seems to me they can. It also seems to me they want to impose their own terms on that participation, but that is a wholly different thing than the other examples.
Exceptions don’t necessarily invalidate the rule. Especially when there are few exceptions and those we do allow are also fundamental (like oversight and protection of small children).
We do it instinctively It’s how we give their sex a social interpretation (aka gender).
German actually recognizes this grammatically.
Die Maed is feminine, but das Mädchen is neuter. Similarly der Bu and das Bubel.
How cool are they?
I don’t speak a word of German so I don’t really follow that. I don’t deny that we give sexual differences a social interpretation and that we treat small children as outside the binary that we usually apply to adults though. I just don’t see how that gets you to the conclusion that we necessarily have to treat adults as outside the sexual binary with respect to any discrete question.
Honestly, gay was also seen as a mental illness.
Which doesn’t mean that therefore they are similar, but it does mean they were reacted to similarly.
Imho because both question gender assumptions.
??
This essence business is tricky.
If you mean by essence the indefinable uncommunicable combination of being that makes an individual, then I say me too! The problem with that conception, though, is that it’s indefinable and uncommunicable – probably even to ourselves let alone other people. In short it’s not of any practical use to the wider world.
If you mean by essence some indefinable and uncommunicable quality of some classification or group membership then watch out because you just might be an identitarian. And you just might open the door for all of the ugliness that we spent so much of the 20th century fighting against. Rev. King had a dream, and that dream wasn’t to revel in his blackness or his maleness or his Christianness. It was to be judged based on the content of his character rather than the color of his skin.
Yes, I know that homosexuality was seen as a mental illness. I’m talking about differences even within that framework.
That’s gender.
I’m not arguing we have to treat adults any particular way, only that we do whatever we do based on a social interpretation. (Of sex and age.)
Arguing from principle rather than specific issue.
Then we need to consider that old point of contention: proxies. We institute rules that are broadly applicable and useful yet imperfect at the margins. Sometimes exceptions an accommodations can be made for those margins, sometimes (usually?) not.
They totally do invalidate the reasoning behind a rule. Or at least illustrate that it’s incomplete (at best).
Or, indeed, his genitals and clothing.
Right?
Right, but those things aren’t about “essence”. That was your word, not mine.
So we should clamp down on all rules and remove any exceptions? Or should we dispense with most rules since few are without exception and so must necessarily be invalid?
Human beings (and society at large) cannot function without rules and social norms. But every social norm has exceptions. Are you suggesting that rules and norms that work for 99% of the population are invalid and should not exist? How do we get along then? Evaluating every interaction from ground zero would take a lot of time and energy that would interfere with human interaction and social function.
We might need to accommodate exceptions, but we cannot as a practical matter allow the exceptions to prevent the rule.
The definition of the word “gender” is the problem.
The primary definition of gender is grammatical, where languages such as Latin, German, French, Spanish, etc., assign a gender to nouns, and the various connected words have to match.
There is a secondary definition of gender as a synonym for sex.
That’s it. Don’t take my word for it, you can prove this to yourself by checking out any older dictionary.
There has been a recent movement to replace the secondary definition of gender with a new one that is not very specific and contradicts the original. The ability to change the definitions of words is a very powerful political tool of force. Like Newspeak in George Orwell’s 1984.
The left is skilled at this, and we’re seeing a lot of cases of people taking the opportunity to get screaming mad about the issue, and applying pressure to accept the new definition. And we’re seeing online references updating their definitions right now.
If you’re going to use a word like gender, where the definition is dynamic, wobbly, and weaponized, you can’t expect an earnest discussion.
Referring back to the thoughts contained in Comment #49 (and some of its predecessors), part of my skepticism about these pushes for radical social change arises when activists pushing the change are clearly seeking more than “accommodation.” They refuse to acknowledge that their demands make others uncomfortable. They refuse suggestions such as using a separate individual user bathroom. They go out of their way to hunt down a business that objects to what they want done. They seem to target a business specifically because the business operator has expressed reservations about the issue presented. Behavior such as that suggests not a troubled individual in need of compassion, but a bully out to get his way.
Zafar, I am not sure which topic you thought would be among the first handful of topics that would come up for me over at “askthetranspeople.tumblr.com”
I did go over there, and this topic appeared:
Anonymously Asked Question:Hi I’m really ignorant to trans struggle but it seems to be a fallout of gender roles. I’m learning about feminism & gender-critical feminism. I am NOT A TERF or hate trans people but I think a huge chunk of trans people are trans because of gender roles. For a while, I had a small period of time where I thought I should have been born a guy because I was a huge tomboy but whatever, anyone can like anything no matter what’s in their pants. It’s confusing when dysphoria is argued. ####
Answer
If you are cis, you’ve no business telling us why we’re trans. Bye.
-Matt
PS part of being an ally and a decent human being is learning to shut the ____ up.
The attitude of the trans person answering suggests a lack of compassion and tolerance for others. Attitudes of the trans person who answered reminds me of why I suddenly put my foot down to say: “No more.”
I once believed because most of us in society were willing to be accepting of others, that then that acceptance would come back to us as well. But now that the New Left has established that the most radical of the society are in charge of the future, and can jump all over anyone of us whenever they are in a pissy mood, I feel the need to say, “Enough is enough.”
I’ll still judge people on person to person basis. But I will not accept sheer nonsense of letting go of normal conventions. One hr programs airing on CBS, prime time on a Sunday night, insisting that even 6 year olds need sex changes means that somewhere along the line, those who moderate our culture are setting our society up for a big fail.
No prior movement in history has ever gotten a full one hour of material presented on Prime TV, about how children as young as five or six have an absolute need and right to consider that they have been born into the wrong body. The followup to those statements was the examination of a little 6 yr old boy who had been given the new wardrobe, hair styling and some makeup so that he could be a she. The child’s mother was giddy with the ecstasy of the situation – that she and her husband had been so supportive.
This show aired on San Francisco Bay area local CBS TV on a Sunday night in Jan or Feb 2019. One troubling thing about it was that there was about a third as many commercials as normal for that time frame. Who funds this stuff? Obviously commercials don’t fund it, as they are not even present to sell cars or detergent during the broadcast. Is it the Clinton Foundation with all its ill gotten billions? George Soros? Obviously the trans are not sponsoring it – their money has to go for their sex changes.
That is a well thought out and most excellent post. I felt better after reading it.
Um, excuse me? This seems like a potential CoC violation unless I’m misunderstanding you.