I'm slowly collecting these as resources for the trans kids at my college that express doubt about their decisions and conflict with the ideology. Don't know how much it's working, but at least they're open to the information!
I found this to be a brilliant editorial argument supported by practical legal expertise, and I just came here to say well done. If you have interrogated this issue and emerged with no feelings or opinions about it, something is off. The author’s rhetorical flourishes are obviously that; and they are why most of us read quality Substack articles instead of legal briefs. Nevertheless this author, in her thoroughness, offers links to those very briefs; so everyone can satisfy his or her preference.
Some of the arguments made in this piece are thought provoking. Unfortunately, the author regularly undermines his or her position with throwaway lines that can only be described as snarky. A presentation based on the facts comes across as reasoned argument, but snarkiness and ridicule smack of bias and undercut the author’s credibility.
“I think it’s that thing where college kids get extra time on exams if their Mom pays a doctor to say they have ADHD.”
“Say what you will about Strangio, at least he’s salt of the earth.”
“These ambitions are grandiose and, to people like me who compulsively make fun of queer folks, threatening.”
“I think ACLU attorneys got comfortable making illogical arguments propped up by rhetorical tricks that were more honorable but less sophisticated than hypnosis because these arguments helped them win.”
“From that moment on, Brooke’s parents pretended that he was a girl.”
In addition, the piece is riddled with biased terms such as “cosmology,” “plucked” and “loot.”
Why shouldn’t she snark? This is the stupidest shit on the planet. I’m betting that if I wrote a screenplay about this and invented a transsexual supervillain called “Chase Strangio” Netflix or Max or whatever would turn me away for being too over-the-top.
One of the things that chaps my ass about this whole movement is how it has bleached people’s brains with humorlessness. We should be able to laugh at wokescolds & men in charity shop castoffs and lippy -- because they’re HILARIOUS. Pretending they’re not is just as offensive to me as telling me I MUST recognize them as women. Can’t wait for my copy of Graham Lineman’s book.
The only problem with “I think it’s that thing where college kids get extra time on exams if their Mom pays a doctor to say they have ADHD" is that it was a less than perfect snarky answer to the question "What are queer rights, anyway?"
The line missed the mark because it didn't draw upon all that's ridiculous about most queers and on what's preposterous about so-called queer theory.
In the scheme of things, though, this is a very minor quibble. In any case, the author didn't set out to write a dispassionate and objective piece comparing and contrasting the nature of the ACLU's advocacy in the Arkansas case with that of the opposing party. It was his or her aim to explicate and criticize the ACLU's mendacity and in that he or she succeeded admirably.
I enjoyed them, and I think the conventional dispassionate scientific tone to the “debate” is useless. Trans people have morphed over 50 years in front of me into violent, women-abusing homophobic child torturers. You don’t win the rhetorical debate with “factually incorrect” and “let me clarify”.
Americans need to learn British skill in making absolutely withering statements which are easy to repeat.
“Better trans than dead.” Is an example.
The terms of the debate are not being controlled, and devilish humor really can’t be fought.
Perhaps I’m not the best audience for this particular kind of post, which is fair enough, but just to say what I’d valued most of all about earlier posts is the hard work that was done to excavate and display what actually happened in this trial. I do hope future posts will return to that--for one, I remain eager to find out about Stephen Levine’s testimony, how the legal teams on each side handled it, and anything that can be gleaned from the record about the judge’s response to that.
For me, while the legal stuff is interesting, the best part was the one titled "The Arkansas Child Represented by the ACLU". I just don't understand how people can be so blind to the logical fallacies and circular arguments that are such an essential part of gender ideology. Especially when it can lead to such horrible suffering.
I know and respect these ACLU lawyers Lisa disparages here. I know their work, their credentials, their expertise, etc. but what experience does Lisa have. I’m out of here.
Thank you, Lisa. I didn’t see your offer till just now. I actually wasn’t rebutting anything, but rather raising concerns about the mocking attitude of the piece. I think my two earlier posts expressed my criticisms sufficiently. I’m someone who has made the journey from all-in 100% supporter of my son’s decision to transition (thankfully no surgery) to one who is adamantly opposed to surgical and hormonal interventions at least prior to adulthood. I would not have got here by being mocked, and I’m horrified to consider how my thinking might or might not have evolved had I been subjected to the ridicule that some people, even among your readers, like to hand out. Thankfully, your writings were among the first “contrarian” essays I came across, and your reasoned and compassionate approach were exactly what I needed. So, a deeply sincere “thank you”.
Mr. Hyland, do you accept that gender identity and sexual orientation are two separate things, that being gay is a sexuality no one desists from, that gender identity is not a sexuality and most kids do desist from opposite gender identity with puberty unless provided gender meds, that most kids with actual gender dysphoria will grow up to be gay adults, that gender meds provide no improvement to gender dysphoria, mental health or anything else? if you deny these facts then you are also denying the current facts of this issue. perhaps many of these facts have became more apparent in the years since you became aware of this issue. if you accept these facts then you would also have to accept that gender affirming "care" is one of the most homophobic interventions man has ever conjured. how do you reconcile your support for this homophobic intervention with your long standing opposition of homophobia.
I'm slowly collecting these as resources for the trans kids at my college that express doubt about their decisions and conflict with the ideology. Don't know how much it's working, but at least they're open to the information!
That's great to hear. I'm curious to hear what you find resonates with them.
As of now, several of the kids seem to understand that:
A) Transgenderism reinforces gender stereotypes
B) Hormones suck
I wouldn't be surprised if they were so open because they're communicating over an anonymous forum, free of the toxic aspects of social media.
I found this to be a brilliant editorial argument supported by practical legal expertise, and I just came here to say well done. If you have interrogated this issue and emerged with no feelings or opinions about it, something is off. The author’s rhetorical flourishes are obviously that; and they are why most of us read quality Substack articles instead of legal briefs. Nevertheless this author, in her thoroughness, offers links to those very briefs; so everyone can satisfy his or her preference.
I’m really enjoying this series! It’s thorough and well researched. Nineteen lawyers! That’s astounding.
Some of the arguments made in this piece are thought provoking. Unfortunately, the author regularly undermines his or her position with throwaway lines that can only be described as snarky. A presentation based on the facts comes across as reasoned argument, but snarkiness and ridicule smack of bias and undercut the author’s credibility.
example?
“I think it’s that thing where college kids get extra time on exams if their Mom pays a doctor to say they have ADHD.”
“Say what you will about Strangio, at least he’s salt of the earth.”
“These ambitions are grandiose and, to people like me who compulsively make fun of queer folks, threatening.”
“I think ACLU attorneys got comfortable making illogical arguments propped up by rhetorical tricks that were more honorable but less sophisticated than hypnosis because these arguments helped them win.”
“From that moment on, Brooke’s parents pretended that he was a girl.”
In addition, the piece is riddled with biased terms such as “cosmology,” “plucked” and “loot.”
Why shouldn’t she snark? This is the stupidest shit on the planet. I’m betting that if I wrote a screenplay about this and invented a transsexual supervillain called “Chase Strangio” Netflix or Max or whatever would turn me away for being too over-the-top.
One of the things that chaps my ass about this whole movement is how it has bleached people’s brains with humorlessness. We should be able to laugh at wokescolds & men in charity shop castoffs and lippy -- because they’re HILARIOUS. Pretending they’re not is just as offensive to me as telling me I MUST recognize them as women. Can’t wait for my copy of Graham Lineman’s book.
Policing language and tone is policing thought
The only problem with “I think it’s that thing where college kids get extra time on exams if their Mom pays a doctor to say they have ADHD" is that it was a less than perfect snarky answer to the question "What are queer rights, anyway?"
The line missed the mark because it didn't draw upon all that's ridiculous about most queers and on what's preposterous about so-called queer theory.
In the scheme of things, though, this is a very minor quibble. In any case, the author didn't set out to write a dispassionate and objective piece comparing and contrasting the nature of the ACLU's advocacy in the Arkansas case with that of the opposing party. It was his or her aim to explicate and criticize the ACLU's mendacity and in that he or she succeeded admirably.
ok.. thanks for your honesty
So write your own.
I enjoyed them, and I think the conventional dispassionate scientific tone to the “debate” is useless. Trans people have morphed over 50 years in front of me into violent, women-abusing homophobic child torturers. You don’t win the rhetorical debate with “factually incorrect” and “let me clarify”.
Americans need to learn British skill in making absolutely withering statements which are easy to repeat.
“Better trans than dead.” Is an example.
The terms of the debate are not being controlled, and devilish humor really can’t be fought.
This will be a book. I will review it.
Perhaps I’m not the best audience for this particular kind of post, which is fair enough, but just to say what I’d valued most of all about earlier posts is the hard work that was done to excavate and display what actually happened in this trial. I do hope future posts will return to that--for one, I remain eager to find out about Stephen Levine’s testimony, how the legal teams on each side handled it, and anything that can be gleaned from the record about the judge’s response to that.
For me, while the legal stuff is interesting, the best part was the one titled "The Arkansas Child Represented by the ACLU". I just don't understand how people can be so blind to the logical fallacies and circular arguments that are such an essential part of gender ideology. Especially when it can lead to such horrible suffering.
Please tell me detrans suits are mounting?!!
I know and respect these ACLU lawyers Lisa disparages here. I know their work, their credentials, their expertise, etc. but what experience does Lisa have. I’m out of here.
I didn’t write this piece—but I’m happy to print a rebuttal if you want. What’s the disparaging part, to you?
He won’t reply because he’s just performing his superior virtue and righteousness for us.
Thank you, Lisa. I didn’t see your offer till just now. I actually wasn’t rebutting anything, but rather raising concerns about the mocking attitude of the piece. I think my two earlier posts expressed my criticisms sufficiently. I’m someone who has made the journey from all-in 100% supporter of my son’s decision to transition (thankfully no surgery) to one who is adamantly opposed to surgical and hormonal interventions at least prior to adulthood. I would not have got here by being mocked, and I’m horrified to consider how my thinking might or might not have evolved had I been subjected to the ridicule that some people, even among your readers, like to hand out. Thankfully, your writings were among the first “contrarian” essays I came across, and your reasoned and compassionate approach were exactly what I needed. So, a deeply sincere “thank you”.
Mr. Hyland, do you accept that gender identity and sexual orientation are two separate things, that being gay is a sexuality no one desists from, that gender identity is not a sexuality and most kids do desist from opposite gender identity with puberty unless provided gender meds, that most kids with actual gender dysphoria will grow up to be gay adults, that gender meds provide no improvement to gender dysphoria, mental health or anything else? if you deny these facts then you are also denying the current facts of this issue. perhaps many of these facts have became more apparent in the years since you became aware of this issue. if you accept these facts then you would also have to accept that gender affirming "care" is one of the most homophobic interventions man has ever conjured. how do you reconcile your support for this homophobic intervention with your long standing opposition of homophobia.
Very well said! Kudos.
Anyone can be an expert on something that they are inventing as they go along.