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 Left’s Diffusion Challenge
We on the right and our counterparts on the left are each convinced that the media are biased, though we disagree about which way the press tilts. Spoiler: It tilts left — it isn’t even close. Worse, it tilts left more blatantly and extremely and unashamedly than it ever has before, at least in my lifetime. Most of our institutions tilt left, our universities and schools and entertainment industry — and, of course, those noble defenders of democracy who elide and dissemble under cover of press passes.
So here’s the problem for our friends on the left. The trailblazing institutions of progressive innovation have outpaced the roughly half of the country that doesn’t think of itself as generally conservative. We on the right think they’re crazy; increasingly, registered Democrats who earn their living in the real world and who are normal people kind of agree, even if they aren’t eager to talk about it. As the gap between the vanguard of the left and the nominal progressive voter widens, the views of the two groups must necessarily diverge: radical ideas can only diffuse through the culture so quickly, and the pop-cultural pace-setters are moving faster than normal people care to keep up, or are even able to keep up.
I think the trans movement is the first conspicuous example of this rift. It’s going to fail, because it demands too much too quickly. No normal person signed on for co-ed locker rooms and the de facto end of women’s sports, but that’s where it will inevitably lead, and with the blessing of the blithely unaware mavens of radicalism. If we can survive the next few bouts of inevitable Democratic governance, I think we’ll begin to see a return to sanity.
The press will be the last to know.
Published in Culture
That’s common sense. But the trans movement seems to be more harmful than that. The Texas transgender case is much more serious than arguments about bathrooms and sports. The recent cover story on the National Review magazine (NRODT) by Madeline Kearns indicates that this is the norm in blue states, and is going mostly unchallenged.
As this issue comes to the forefront, perhaps that will disgust enough of the public for some serious push back.
Of course this is a National Review cover story, not a New York Times cover story. So maybe not.
Al,
I’d like to believe that people would recoil from the awfulness of what is being done to minors as part of the trans movement, but, as you point out in your last sentence, most people will simply never hear about it, not in any credible fashion. On the other hand, the reality of boys in the high school girls’ locker room, and boys competing against girls in high school, college, Olympic, and professional athletics will get their attention, because these are impossible to hide from normal people going about their normal lives.
Special interests win when they’re more motivated than the general public. But those parents and young people who experience negative encounters with the trans movement in their own lives will be highly motivated. Given how aggressive the trans activists are, I think there will be a lot of pushback.
H.
Speaking of things that have outpaced those of us who are (relatively) normal people, and that we’re not eager to talk about, whether we think of ourselves as generally conservative or not, I read about a new trend that seems to have taken the glitterati by storm, and whose ill-effects seem to have come as a total surprise to them after they try it. As the children say, I can’t even.
These are the people who pontificate from on-high about how we manage every aspect of our lives, from the political, to the social, to the cultural, to the environmental, and everything else. And, apparently, a great many of them think this is a good idea and are left with red cheeks (so to speak) when the third-degree burns develop. I’ll remember that, next time Leo, or Barbra (who I think is Brolin’s stepmother), or Meryl, or Robert, or any of the rest of them start throwing the “F” bomb on national television, or lecturing me on how to behave and ordering me about as if I am a defaulting barracks-sweeper and they are my CO.
It’s N(quite)SFW, so I’ll just link. You’ve been warned. But really, I think I’m among rational friends here: Is there anyone on Ricochet, if the action described were recommended to you, who’d give it a moment’s serious thought, or who wouldn’t laugh the notion to scorn?**
Never mind. Forget I asked. Just the thought bubble is deeply disturbing. But really. Who are these people, that they think this is such a clever idea?
https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/perineum-sunning-josh-brolin
**It’s my hope that so many people are doing that (laughing this notion to scorn), that even these fools will realize their minds are so open their brains appear to have fallen out.
Thank you. I don’t know who Josh Brolin is, but I understood the rest of the words in the foxnews.com link you helpfully provided — and so I’ll save myself the click.
One of the reasons I enjoy the stories of the Left eating its own when one Leftist is caught not quite fully up-to-date on the latest crusade of the moment is that I hope through those stories the general public will notice that no matter how “Progressive” or “woke” they think they are, at some point they will miss something, and they will become and object of scorn for people who previously pretended to be your friends or allies.
The trailblazing institutions of progressive innovation apparently consider change for the sake of change as their objective. They have no foundation. If you try to follow them, you are constantly trying to stand on an ever shifting platform that at some point is going to give way and drop you into a pit that will be very unpleasant.
Henry, I’m less optimistic than you.
I would have thought that the pro-homosexuality nonsense, propaganda, and lies would have been too much for ordinary, sensible people to believe. Indeed, even earlier, I would have thought that the radical feminist nonsense, with the attack on traditional marriage and the promotion, even open subsidization, of single motherhood would have been too much for ordinary, sensible people to believe. I saw almost no objection to such ideas.
It is possible that the trans thing will be the bridge too far, and that the whole rotten edifice will collapse, perhaps with unexpected speed.
I have heard growing reports, most notably from Douglas Murray and Jordan Peterson, that very large numbers of ordinary, sensible people are afraid to speak their minds. But this has been going on for a very long time, I think, although the issues have shifted as the Wokeists have won battle after battle.
President Trump is not active or vocal on these issues, though I think that much of his support is his willingness to challenge the PC or Wokeist establishment in some way, often rudely.
I wonder if there’s a political opportunity for conservatives, specifically in picking up black and Hispanic voters. I’ve heard that black voters, in particular, are not fond of the homosexual or trans agenda.
This is unlikely, however, as I see very little opposition to the homosexual or trans agenda among leading conservative politicians or pundits. Libertarian views tend to prevail.
I see this attitude, which I consider to be error and moral cowardice, most notably when addressing the issue of the mutilation of children in the name of the trans agenda. The general attitude of so-called conservative commentators is to concede that this horrific procedure is appropriate for adults, but that children are a special case.
I have heard almost no one take the position, which is mine and which I consider to be quite sensible, that an adult who wants to surgically and chemically mutilate his body should be prevented from doing so, for his own protection, as he is clearly in the grip of a terrible psychological or spiritual dysfunction. I find it quite surprising that people would support such action, though they would not (I think) support a policy of allowing an anorexic to starve herself to death, or support a policy of allowing a person with a different type of body dysphoria to amputate a perfectly healthy arm or leg.
I think that the explanation is a deep rejection of traditional morality regarding sexuality, marriage, and sex roles, often founded in antipathy for religion in general, and Christianity in particular. I find the situation both odd and tragic.
Dr. Paul McHugh at Johns Hopkins has been postulating this for many decades. I’m not sure if he’s retired, but have seen his name in several discussions recently focusing on allowing/encouraging children to undergo “gender reassignment.” He’s very articulate in his opposition to this.
You are taking movements at face value as if they mean what they say they are about. Consider the fact that the actual population “trans” people is tiny and yet they are being jammed into public consciousness daily. What is really going on?
There is no persecution of Muslims or widespread “Islamaphobia.” The likelihood of a young black man being shot by a cop is not only astronomically small it is a magnitude less than the chances of being shot by another young black man. There are no Nazis of KKK members on college campuses committing hate crimes. The planet is in no danger from SUVs or plastic straws. And yet we are constantly compelled to treat absurd exaggerations seriously.
As Americans, we almost instinctively respond favorably when people couch their argued social issues position as merely an assertion of a right of personal autonomy in which they exercise the freedom to choose their life path. But then it always turns out that when that freedom is used to make some highly suspect choice, we are required to applaud, wave the pride flag or bake the bake. Somehow it was not about what we were told it was about.
As Americans, we revile injustice and unfairness and respond in support of those who claim victimhood but then it turns out victimhood is a career and lifestyle choice that requires the rest of us to assume the role of oppressors. Forever.
We need to refuse to be gaslighted anymore.
I don’t, actually — but I’m not sure that’s relevant either way.
Whatever its motives, there is a trans movement that is seeking to mainstream a radical, and mistaken, conception of human sexuality. That movement has overreached — the point of my post — and will, I believe, be knocked back because of it. And this kind of failure will occur more often as empowered progressive opinion elites mistake the resounding voices in their increasingly radical echo chambers for the support of center-left America at large.
There is an ongoing attack on normalcy, natural law, traditional morality and the entire philosophical and moral heritage of the western world. The “trans movement” is just another pretext for continuing the assault. Shiloh and Gettysburg were not separate wars but events in a larger ongoing struggle.
All of the enthusiasm for the trans “movement” is there solely by virtue of its usefulness in the larger war. It will recede much faster than did reverence for second wave feminism. The moment there are indications of acceptance and sympathy for people with sexual identity problems, the “movement” will dissipate because if it no longer shocks or offends the normals then another front needs to be opened. In its wake will be tiresome litigation skirmishes about employee clothing and curriculum but the immediate objective to disrupt, demoralize and disorient the normals will have been advanced.
Thanks for the citation to Dr. McHugh. I looked into him briefly, and found that he has been outrageously vilified by the radical Left, including the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Orwellian “Human Rights Campaign.”.
My point relates to mainstream conservative politicians and pundits. I can think of few examples of serious opposition to the trans agenda, an agenda that I identify as somewhere between insanity and intentional maliciousness. I did look up David French and, to his credit, he appears to question the entire trans agenda in a reasonable way.
Incidentally, I don’t deny that there are “trans” people, if by this one means a person with gender identity disorder or gender dysphoria. It seems to be a very, very tiny number of people. The prevalence figures that I’ve seen are in the 0.01% to 0.03% range. The prevalence number that I’ve seen for “trans” in surveys is in the 3-5% range, and is much higher among the young (as high as 12%-16% in a 2017 GLAAD survey, among those aged 18-34).
Like homosexuality, the trans agenda is leading to Orwellian changes in the language — the substitution of “gender” for “sex,” leading to the absurd “gender assigned at birth” formulation that I actually encountered at a doctor’s office; the change from “gender identity disorder” to “gender dysphoria” — to take out the term “disorder” — and another classification system is going to change the term from “gender identity disorder” to “gender incongruence.”
I predict that this bizarre acceptance, and even celebration and privileging — of deviant sexuality and trans people is going to cause a significant increase in prevalence of these conditions. This was obvious, and is already happening, as I have documented elsewhere. Such an increase is completely inconsistent with the “born that way” and “immutable” arguments believed not only the radical Wokeists, but also by many generally reasonable Libertarian and Conservatarian folks, including some of our friends here at Ricochet.
You may be correct — though you’re asserting an assumption about motives as if it were fact, and that’s probably risky. However, the trans movement differs from other recent examples of progressive social engineering in that it overreaches. That’s the critical difference between, say, men competing as women in athletic events, on the one hand, and same-sex marriage on the other: one has an immediate and irremediable consequence, and the other is easy for normal people to ignore.
Again, you’re asserting an opinion as fact. I happen to disagree: my own opinion is that a lot of the enthusiasm around the trans movement is faddish, and a lot more has to do with the license it gives people to slack off and drop out. This demographic, composed largely of vacuous college-age people, probably isn’t all that fired up about anything. They’re just joiners, and anything to do with sex is good.
But that is my point, it was never about the alleged plight of guys in dresses. We agree that many are just moved by inertia but the principal moving force is not bathroom use nor the eternally present sex drive of undergraduates. There is a conscious philosophical attack underway. Those who select the issues, define the terms and set the rules of engagement are very much involved in a broader campaign which they are winning.
Overreach is a feature not a bug. Third-wave feminism was about exterminating the perception of sexual differences and even becoming intolerant of women who chose more traditional roles and values–but still clinging to first-wave, perpetual victim status. (Fully equal but eternally oppressed.) Questioned privately, an overwhelming majority of men and women regard third-wave feminism as stupid and yet…
Similarly, the lunacy of the trans bathroom use issue gets a muted response from the sane and normal as we have been silenced in so many venues and have been trained to fear the wrath of the new owners of the language.
First-wave feminism was indeed a movement that had realistic, tangible goals and was consistent with existing notions of fairness etc. The current “movements” are more about showing the normals whose boss and rubbing our noses in it. Nice dress you are wearing, Winton. Now, many fingers am I holding up?
The overreach is pure gaslighting, the rulers of language and the public square are telling us that reliance on “commonsense” and “natural law” is no longer permitted in the new world. They clearly believe that after this last gasp Trumpian rebellion, that new order will erase all such attachments.
You seem to imply that overreach means that there will be a corrective response from the normals, thus bringing the “movement” to a rapid close. I hope the hell you are right but I never thought the gaslighting campaign would get this far.
Henry, I don’t agree that there is a significant difference between trans, on the one hand, and the pro-homosexuality and radical feminist agenda, on the other. All are assaults on traditional morality, and on Christianity in particular.
Good luck ignoring the whole same-sex marriage thing if you bake cakes, or offer any other goods or services. In fact, you will be forced to associate with homosexuals, whether you want to or not, by anti-discrimination laws.
I have little sympathy, actually, for the issue of women’s sports. By the prevailing ethos of the Left, adopted by much of the Right, we are not supposed to discriminate on the basis of sex. Women’s sports would disappear if we did not allow open, overt discrimination on the basis of sex. If you accept the analogy between sex discrimination and race discrimination, women’s sports are the equivalent of the bad old whites-only days in baseball and other sports.
If you do not accept the analogy between sex discrimination and race discrimination, then you should recognize that women’s sports, at least at a high level, are a lie. Women are not competitive in these areas, and I see no reason to encourage or reward athletes who are not competitive with the best, and who cannot win unless their opposition is restricted on the basis of sex. Doing so does not teach that women are strong. It demonstrates, frankly, that women are weak — except that we’re all supposed to lie about it.
I do not object to recreational women’s sports, for exercise purposes.
That’s a BIG if.
It’s hard to believe, but the practice to which you linked was topped for silliness over a decade ago. I had never heard of that particular practice, but an advice columnist advised against it. He began his response to a question from a young woman by saying, “These are words I never thought I’d write.” He then wrote, “Don’t bleach your [redacted].”
Sheesh,how idiotic !! FWIW, I’m not sure that part of my body has ever felt the rays of the sun.
Re: comment 3
I can’t believe, after years of warnings about sun burn and skin cancer, after SPF 30 and 45 protective lotions, we’d have even one person hopelessly stupid enough to sun-burn his arse. It just does not seem possible.
I’m surprised to hear this from you of all people.
Those on the right and their counterparts on the non-ideological left and middle all want the water they’re being cooked in to get hotter at about the same rate now as it was one minute ago.
They all want to retire comfortably on the benefits of past Godliness, past sacrifices, past freedoms, past justice, and die before they have to see more of the consequences for their children and grandchildren, whom they’ve given over to the rapidly worsening abuse and corruption by the progressives, than they can bear to watch.
To their peril, the American left often discounts the legitimacy of the things that govern and order society. It’s assumed that the values and principles in use are merely preferences, when in reality, the overwhelming majority of them were accepted by reason and not decree.
That’s a keeper, thanks. The law–our values and principles–came up from us through reason, and later another law came down to us by decree. The left have no memory of our laws because the past is the enemy to them.
When it comes to transgenders in women’s sports, you’re already seeing the activists there attempting to shut down critics, even when the critics are part of what would normally be considered other parts of the left’s special interest groups. That was made clear when Martina Navratiolva was basically declared an enemy of the people for pointing out that having people born biologically male competing in women’s sports was going to be unfair.
Navratilova was speaking from experience, since she was on the WTA circuit 40 years ago when Dr. Richard Raskin became Dr. Renee Richards, and in his/her early 40s made it into the Top 15 on the women’s pro tennis tour. But experience didn’t matter to the woke activists, and she was labeled as a transgenderphobic h8ter for her beliefs, where her longtime support for lesbian causes now meant zilch.
Eventually, though, this problem isn’t going to be able to be suppressed by calling anyone who questions it a bigot. When transgendered males start winning women’s events at the Olympics, or making it to the top of the women’s sports that pay significant cash on the pro level, like tennis or golf, that’s when the fight’s really going to come out into the open.
To the extent that you are saying that there is little difference between left and right, I disagree. I think there is a lot of difference.
Unfortunately, there is a trapdoor quality to entitlement programs: once created, they inevitably have substantial constituencies of motivated beneficiaries. It is frustrating that neither side pushes for serious spending reductions.
But left and right are not the same. Today, the left wants to reverse the relationship of governing and governed, and make the people essentially wards of the state. The right does not.
Exactly. Unlike less visible leftist excesses, this one can not be ignored.
Like Jerry, I just don’t see pushback against the trans fantasies among many people. It seems to me that most leftists immediately adopted it as their next cause celebrè and most conservatives are too fearful to publicly object or comfortably pretend such nonsense will fade away.
True, those fantasies are harder to ignore in sports and parents will fight for their kids to enjoy sports without unfair competition. But leftists habitually contradict themselves, so I see no reason they can’t cling to the trans fantasies apart from particular, personal circumstances.
There is no bottom to the rabbit hole. Speak painful truths and face the fire. The Left does not reward capitulation with tolerance.
A star Olympic female athlete, especially one from a non-western country, being beaten out by a transgendered male from America or one of the European countries is going to cause a major kerfuffle (where the jokes about the questionable femininity of East German athletes back during the Cold War era went with the anger that they were suspected of at the very least using male biological chemical treatments to cheat. This is going to be even worse, and countries whose XX chromosome athletes finish second to an XYer probably aren’t going to be soothed by having the IOC tell them it’s OK, because the winner’s taking testosterone suppression treatments).
Yes. I believe the trans issue is unlike other hyper-left causes, because it combines a patently absurd idea with serious and immediate real world consequences.
And the left can not easily accept woman-with-asterisk status, because that exposes the fallacy of the whole transgender idea.
I’m looking forward to watching this play out.
But how is it unlike the others?
I think the main thing is going to be the visibility. When you get into the realm of sports competition, especially at the higher-profile/higher-payout events, people pay attention more than, say, the top two sprinters in Connecticut HS girls track being transgendered (or if a transgendered male ended up getting a position specifically carved out for a woman over a biological female. In both cases, the women involved are hurt, but the general public takes at best a passing interest).
If you have a hypothetical, where suddenly next summer transgendered males are winning some of the higher-profile track or swimming events at the Olympics, it’s going to become an international incident, where the women (and the people in general) in other countries might not be as willing as many in the U.S. to just shut up and take it or risk being branded a transophobe (i.e. — If China doesn’t win their fourth straight Olympic women’s volleyball title because some 6-7 transgendered American is pounding spikes down on their blockers, I don’t think they’re going to take that situation very calmly and quietly).
I don’t think the country will easily survive a Democrat President. Clearly death will be slow and a lot can happen over the years but the far left knows they have to move fast. Had Hillary won, it would have been slower, mostly just enriching the Clintons, but now the left can see the real opposition and won’t just behave like normal Democrats. Listen to Warren, that’s where they’re heading. When Trump wins, he must begin stripping unconstitutional power from the Federal government and returning it to the states where they can decide to keep, trim, eliminate or, like California double down. He must get the Federal government and the unions out of direct Education and work with the states to dismember unified State control over primary and secondary education through parent choice.