This tactic of dismissing "culture war" issues in favor of "It's the economy, stupid!" rhetoric, I am afraid will work for a while longer, because the most egregious and long-lasting harms will stay hidden, due to parents frozen silent as their medicalized children run through the initial euphoria and then (once the iatrogenic harms become unignorable) retreat into disability and poverty, while every medical and political institution hides all evidence of their numbers. For every Medical Scandal that makes its way into general knowledge, there are many more that are known only by a few historians. But I sure as hell was aware of economics as I desperately tried to find trustworthy therapy for my daughter that we could afford (our Insurance would only cover the "affirming" quacks), as I reflected on how we couldn't afford a decent alternative to the public education that planted the seeds of the warped ideology that softened up her mind for this cultish belief system, as I noticed I was simultaneously too well off AND not rich enough to access all these therapies using horses and nature retreats that might have helped her that last year she remained under my roof . . . But what good is prosperity if we lose our kids? And economics is so tightly intertwined with culture that to claim politicians should have nothing to say about it is just more moral relativism expressed by people who really doesn't want to think very hard about what is right and what is wrong, lest they be constrained by it. How to break through that? Ridicule. A spoon full of sugar to make the medicine go down. It's time for modern day Jonathan Swifts to draw attention to moral midgets like that mayoral candidate you spoke to with a flood of satire, because the policies put in place by such "let them eat cake" types are cannibalizing our kids' futures. Facts and earnest and urgent entreaties don't work, and we're treated like crazy Cassandras. But I predict some serious gallows humor coming from a few survivors who happen to carry the talent of comedic genius (Cori Cohn's brand is quiet and subtle, but there will be louder comics whose jokes will contain kernels of very ugly truths about the "transgender" religion of child and youth sacrifice that even the most obtuse will "get.")
Lisa, I think you owe it to NYC voters to reveal the name of this closed-minded, self-righteous candidate. Surely not all the candidates are this inflexible on these issues.
I'm not surprised. I followed his arc back when I lived in Brooklyn and worked in Park Slope. He's just not going to hear you out. You could follow up with a letter, and the suggestions I detail above. Good luck. The only other thought I can contribute is that many in the Black Christian community do not want their children to get the unicorn curriculum in the public schools.
In the last mayoral election there were about a dozen Dems, ranging from moderate to socialist. So yes, I expect at least a couple who are running now to be less dogmatic on gender.
"I shook my head at this, unsure how to answer—why couldn’t we debate the fairness of males on female sports teams, or the theory of gender identity, just because he had staffers with nouveau pronouns?"
And herein lies the problem. People with power, members of the PMC, now have friends, relatives and colleagues with transkids who they are loathe to throw under the bus. For them, this is about avoiding uncomfortable conversations with their peers not about justice for female athletes or straying from the scientific method.
The left hunts for heretics, while the right looks for converts. So glad that nice conservative man is open to furthering the conversation with you. I’m thinking that there are plenty of Republican & even very conservative families who love their gay brothers and sisters; aunts & uncles; and don’t want to see them or anyone else harmed by the gender abattoir.
<<... most Democrats suffer from a disease I like to call “liberalitis”—the fear of being seen as a bad person. They want to be on the right side of history, ....>>
I don't know whether there's a specific name for the behavior we're seeing among Democrats. It's a sort of corollary of the well-known Confirmation Bias, the tendency of people to give undue weight to evidence that tends to support what they already believe. People don't just discount evidence that contradicts their priors; they 𝘥𝘰𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 on what they already think.
I agree. Though I think it may be worth asking the Lander types about when they started thinking along the lines of this new ideology, and molding their words and behaviors to conform to it. It can't be for very long, 10-15 years at most, and they ought to be put on the spot about that. I have no faith in most politicians (that's just me... and a lot of other people!) but I think these types really need dressing down. Lisa did amazingly well under the circumstances. Not much chance that he was going to admit to anything fair and common sense in the presence of future "woke" donors. Plus he sounds like a real jerk. Sorry for ranting, it's what I tend to do. Have a good day!
Hello there. New to the conversation, but I really agree with the idea of Dems doubling down even in the face of hard facts and evidence to the contrary. The progressive left, from what I see in horror, does not want to be wrong. Being wrong would put an end to a horrendous belief system that has resulted in egregious wrongs committed on our vulnerable children. Who wants to be responsible for that? And therein lies the rub.
Hello back! I agree with you. The "progressive" left hasn't been progressive for years, if they ever were. But the current "right-wing" (not true conservatives at all anymore in the best sense and they never have been) are a disaster too. For me, I still won't abandon the only party with much potential anymore, and IMO that's the Democratic Party, barring some really big wave of social realists becoming a viable party on their own. I'd rather share my honest opinion about "trans" with Democrats and what it means for society than trust the current Republican Party with the welfare of women and children (and vulnerable adults of either sex). They betray those groups in their own horrendous way and I see it as worse overall than the Democrats. Time will tell if I'm wrong or right. When more Dems start speaking their honest minds about trans ideology (and I thought we were heading that way without voting for Trump), there's hope for the party. That said, if the Republicans would go back to socially open-minded policies and fiscal conservatism, i.e. the party they used to be, we all could probably live with the compromises between the two parties. Anyway, maybe you can tell I'm late middle-aged from my opinionated observations. There's something to be said for "institutional memory" (I hope, ha ha!). If you read this far, thanks for your comment and sorry for my long-windedness (and further ranting). Best to you!
Well, I am 66 myself, so I don't think I can call that middle age anymore! :) My daughter reminds me that I am old every so often. I love her still!
And before I forget, all long-winded responses most welcome.
I agree with any and all concerns about the Republican party, especially its extreme right wing, and its capture by Trump. As to the Democratic party, I don't think I am there yet. There appears to be little reckoning going on, and the party desperately needs one if it wants to present itself as a viable alternative given the global shift to the right that is going on. Is there a course correction going on? I don't know. But until I am more solidly behind saner positions taken by the Democrats, or at least the emergence of more centrist Democrats willing to take on the more extreme factions of the party, I will remain an independent and learn as much as I can to contribute to the conversation.
How dare he accuse those concerned about a tremendous social and medical scandal harming tens of thousands of young vulnerable people of wanting to "wage a culture war." He obviously has no idea that this is actually gaslighting, sterilizing, mutilating, and otherwise weakening the health of so many children, teens and young adults at an alarming rate, and putting males in female sports and prisons, and rape crisis centers! He probably doesn't know the names Griffin Sivret or Paige McNabb, much less the hundreds of outspoken detransitioners (or the many thousands of quiet detransitioners), or desisters, or whistleblowers like Jamie Reed.
He needs to be informed, but he won't be if he doesn't even listen to those who try!
His daughter went to high school with my son and I fantasized using that as a means to get to speak with him, but my son downplays his friendship with her (they're seniors in college now), so I guess that fantasy's gone. I keep getting his incessant emails, saying he wants public input - but I don't think he really does.
And his "concern" for his "they/them" staffers is ridiculous. They will not be harmed by listening to your concerns, but my daughter suffers daily harm to her mind and body (taking testosterone at 18) because of the false messages she received and keeps receiving from society, and from NYC in particular. And so many more are being harmed every day. Do they deserve his concern?
And what about women in prison with violent men; do they deserve his concern?
I have no hopes for him being the candidate to save our city. Oh well.
"they don’t want to be enlightened; they want to belong"
I don't think this is correct. I think that they believe (and for good reason) that THEY are the enlightened ones, and that you are the one in need of enlightening.
Why good reason? Because everyone they know and trust shares their opinion on this. That's how they got to their opinion, not only on this issue, but on ALL issues. It's how we all do it, on everything.
To change one's mind, there has to be some cognitive dissonance: something else that is ALREADY BELIEVED to be equally true, but is in conflict. On trans, for many, this come from a relative or friend declaring a trans identity, this new identity conflicting with the old in ways that cannot be ignored. It could come from some conflicting principle like parental rights. But it has to be there, and to argue effectively, you first have to figure out what it is for the person you're trying to convince.
This is interesting, MarkS, about how to find the right talking points or seeds to plant—find the commonality or connection, first. Because I think it actually IS a function of “belonging.” The group or ideas to which we feel we belong, or belong to us, are the enlightened groups/ideas otherwise we wouldn’t belong or hold fast to them. What we are inviting people to do when we aim to provide this new information or perspective (and introduce cognitive dissonance) is to invite them to become destabilized and risk the security of belonging, the security of being with the enlightened ones, risk being ostracized. Who WANTS to have their worldview and sense of security challenged? I think abandonment fears are more powerful than we realize and that Lisa and you are on to something here.
Lisa’s conversation with and thoughts about the conservative politician is interesting in this regard, too.
Lisa, I’m so grateful to you for trying to talk with this candidate. I wish someone would do research on how best to shift these pro-trans views and open them to discussion. Do we need talking points?
Good on you for taking on a Brooklyn Dem candidate, who of course, has "they/them" staffers. Outside of asking whether his staff actually debates on issues, I suggest a few websites on a card, and mentions of documentaries like The Lost Boys, Behind the Looking Glass, and Jennifer Lahl's documentary about female detransitioners. The one tack I didn't read here is the child development, Piaget stages concept. The NIH has a Piaget, 4 stages of child development page on its website. "Wrong body from birth" just can't be an actual thought for a child in the sensory-motor or pre-operational stage. The cognition and language are not there. I had a similar response from Sen. Chuck Schumer when I emailed him about detransitioners. He spouted the usual, memorized from Richard/Rachel Levine, about suicides. I wrote back about segm.org, and the Swedish study of death records and the Cass Review, both written up there. Here's the gist of the 4 stages of development as well as the concept of object permanence:
Good for you for trying. Sounds to me like you gave him a glimpse of the monstrous machinery built by genderism, and he retreated into smugness rather than admit his beliefs might be mistaken. Dems need to be seen as good people, yes, which means they need to believe they are factually correct and morally superior.
This is such a great piece, Lisa, and I so appreciate everyone's comments. "Democrats Really Are for They/Them. Who's for…" hit my inbox in a week when I attended a screening of the pro ERA movie, Ratified, and also watched the new Daily Wire movie, Identity Crisis. I went to the former hoping to be educated about genuine benefits that would accrue to women from getting this amendment added to the constitution and came away even more convinced that the Democratic Party has truly lost the plot. I could not fathom how implementing the ERA would remedy any of the "issues" highlighted in the movie. For example, how would the ERA close the gender pay gap? (I know the 84c on the $ stat has been debunked plenty but continues to be used by Democrats as an appeal). Given that men never need abortions, how would the ERA remedy the loss of the federally protected right to an abortion. Over the past 5 years I have been truly red-pilled myself to the point where I instantly saw through all the appeals the film made. At the end, audience members were supposed to text and send a postcard to Joe Biden demanding that he publish the ERA. There was no way I could do this so I had to make an excuse as I hurried past the expectant postcard gatherer standing between me and the exit.
And then this weekend I watched Identity Crisis for free on X. As the mother of a same sex attracted teen girl who believes she's a boy born in a girl's body, it was as frustrating an experience as Ratified because there was zero space for childhood gender nonconformity, let alone homosexuality, in this documentary. The prevalence of autism and childhood trauma among "trans kids" was emphasized but not a word about the high prevalence of same sex attraction and how that often correlates with gender nonconformity. There was no space for proto-gay kids who fell under the spell of the ideology, nor for their parents. The only acceptable victims were either extremely young children misled by woke moms, heterosexual young adults who had detransitioned and non-affirming dads of the transed young children. As a consequence, I would not want to show my daughter this film because I think it would only further entrench her views. She would be unable to see herself or anyone like her (masculine girl, active, high-functioning, attracted to girls) represented within it.
Lisa, Identity Crisis made me think of your conversation with the very civil staffer at the conservative think tank. I so appreciate that you opened this dialogue with him. Much as I respect and appreciate Matt Walsh's efforts, they won't make an iota of a difference to anyone who hasn't already been red-pilled. Thinking back to when you asked us what I wanted to happen in 2025, one thing I really wish for is a documentary that includes same sex attracted girl and boys prominently in the narrative and that is framed from a liberal perspective. And, in my dreams, YOU would be the one deciding who gets interviewed and how the narrative is framed. Thank you for considering!
I think the LA fires are going to be to Hollywood actors and elite Dems, what October 7th (and campus protests that followed) were for Jewish Americans that had always been left-leaning nationwide. In both cases, in order to find the real coverage on what was happening to the homes and to the people they cared about, and to get the real news regarding the homeland they loved, they had to watch other news outlets/sources outside of legacy media to get the truth and the full picture that they deserved. This is when the large scale slap in the face awakening from woke begins. "Woke Marxism isn’t interested in making things work. In fact, it’s worse than that. Woke Marxism is, by definition, hostile to making things work." -James Lindsay
In really blue, especially west coast blue states, I think the candidate pool quality is pretty low-bar. I look through the voters pamphlet and think, really? Where is any background evidence that makes her an effective decision maker, and are those ear stretching loops in his ear lobes? Also, why do they/thems always get jobs as their staffers? Our outgoing, big bad and blue Governor seat is going to a clone of him and his staffers are staying on with the new guy. That will give them a 15 year run. These woke staffers are activists with power lanyards and the public should be made clear on who they really are. This part you wrote is spot-on ““liberalitis”—the fear of being seen as a bad person. They want to be on the right side of history, and they don’t yet realize that they’re not. They don’t want to have their worlds turned upside down, and have lost too much perspective to realize that it already has been: they are living in the upside-down..” I had a dog meetup group of friends that I had to leave because I woke up and that scared them. You went on to say… “Even listening to us in good faith could taint them, and imperil their chances of seeming good.” They loved me when I would echo Rachel Maddow's segment from the night before, but once I started questioning the DEI classes at my kids school, that's when our meetups started getting fewer. I would try to get my concerns such as safeguarding for kids in, and then hurry up and pepper in comments that I knew they liked to hear such as some horrible thing Trump said. In the end, I chose my kids' well-being and my sanity over belonging. It was easier before, or maybe not. It feels liberating to be out of those old social structures. My dog is still bummed about it, I can tell.
He handed you the hammer to use to defeat him.
"I'm not the candidate for you."
Needs to be on all the billboards.
Yes, he’s also not the candidate for the majority of New Yorkers and he doesn’t care. He assumes his base are more reliable voters than the majority.
This tactic of dismissing "culture war" issues in favor of "It's the economy, stupid!" rhetoric, I am afraid will work for a while longer, because the most egregious and long-lasting harms will stay hidden, due to parents frozen silent as their medicalized children run through the initial euphoria and then (once the iatrogenic harms become unignorable) retreat into disability and poverty, while every medical and political institution hides all evidence of their numbers. For every Medical Scandal that makes its way into general knowledge, there are many more that are known only by a few historians. But I sure as hell was aware of economics as I desperately tried to find trustworthy therapy for my daughter that we could afford (our Insurance would only cover the "affirming" quacks), as I reflected on how we couldn't afford a decent alternative to the public education that planted the seeds of the warped ideology that softened up her mind for this cultish belief system, as I noticed I was simultaneously too well off AND not rich enough to access all these therapies using horses and nature retreats that might have helped her that last year she remained under my roof . . . But what good is prosperity if we lose our kids? And economics is so tightly intertwined with culture that to claim politicians should have nothing to say about it is just more moral relativism expressed by people who really doesn't want to think very hard about what is right and what is wrong, lest they be constrained by it. How to break through that? Ridicule. A spoon full of sugar to make the medicine go down. It's time for modern day Jonathan Swifts to draw attention to moral midgets like that mayoral candidate you spoke to with a flood of satire, because the policies put in place by such "let them eat cake" types are cannibalizing our kids' futures. Facts and earnest and urgent entreaties don't work, and we're treated like crazy Cassandras. But I predict some serious gallows humor coming from a few survivors who happen to carry the talent of comedic genius (Cori Cohn's brand is quiet and subtle, but there will be louder comics whose jokes will contain kernels of very ugly truths about the "transgender" religion of child and youth sacrifice that even the most obtuse will "get.")
Yes! to your whole thoughtful comment!
Lisa, I think you owe it to NYC voters to reveal the name of this closed-minded, self-righteous candidate. Surely not all the candidates are this inflexible on these issues.
Brad Lander.
I'm not surprised. I followed his arc back when I lived in Brooklyn and worked in Park Slope. He's just not going to hear you out. You could follow up with a letter, and the suggestions I detail above. Good luck. The only other thought I can contribute is that many in the Black Christian community do not want their children to get the unicorn curriculum in the public schools.
No surprise there! Thank you.
From context I’m guessing Brad Lander. Or maybe Scott Stringer.
Wanna bet?
In the last mayoral election there were about a dozen Dems, ranging from moderate to socialist. So yes, I expect at least a couple who are running now to be less dogmatic on gender.
"I shook my head at this, unsure how to answer—why couldn’t we debate the fairness of males on female sports teams, or the theory of gender identity, just because he had staffers with nouveau pronouns?"
And herein lies the problem. People with power, members of the PMC, now have friends, relatives and colleagues with transkids who they are loathe to throw under the bus. For them, this is about avoiding uncomfortable conversations with their peers not about justice for female athletes or straying from the scientific method.
"I’m concerned about their comfort and safety.”
Is he worried about doctors lying to them about what having gender dysphoria means regarding medical intervention?
Lying to patients considering drugs and surgeries?
He's good with them being told misinformation about benefits, risks, alternatives?
Was he good with doctors and patients being told opioids were not addictive?
The left hunts for heretics, while the right looks for converts. So glad that nice conservative man is open to furthering the conversation with you. I’m thinking that there are plenty of Republican & even very conservative families who love their gay brothers and sisters; aunts & uncles; and don’t want to see them or anyone else harmed by the gender abattoir.
<<... most Democrats suffer from a disease I like to call “liberalitis”—the fear of being seen as a bad person. They want to be on the right side of history, ....>>
I don't know whether there's a specific name for the behavior we're seeing among Democrats. It's a sort of corollary of the well-known Confirmation Bias, the tendency of people to give undue weight to evidence that tends to support what they already believe. People don't just discount evidence that contradicts their priors; they 𝘥𝘰𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 on what they already think.
I agree. Though I think it may be worth asking the Lander types about when they started thinking along the lines of this new ideology, and molding their words and behaviors to conform to it. It can't be for very long, 10-15 years at most, and they ought to be put on the spot about that. I have no faith in most politicians (that's just me... and a lot of other people!) but I think these types really need dressing down. Lisa did amazingly well under the circumstances. Not much chance that he was going to admit to anything fair and common sense in the presence of future "woke" donors. Plus he sounds like a real jerk. Sorry for ranting, it's what I tend to do. Have a good day!
Hello there. New to the conversation, but I really agree with the idea of Dems doubling down even in the face of hard facts and evidence to the contrary. The progressive left, from what I see in horror, does not want to be wrong. Being wrong would put an end to a horrendous belief system that has resulted in egregious wrongs committed on our vulnerable children. Who wants to be responsible for that? And therein lies the rub.
Hello back! I agree with you. The "progressive" left hasn't been progressive for years, if they ever were. But the current "right-wing" (not true conservatives at all anymore in the best sense and they never have been) are a disaster too. For me, I still won't abandon the only party with much potential anymore, and IMO that's the Democratic Party, barring some really big wave of social realists becoming a viable party on their own. I'd rather share my honest opinion about "trans" with Democrats and what it means for society than trust the current Republican Party with the welfare of women and children (and vulnerable adults of either sex). They betray those groups in their own horrendous way and I see it as worse overall than the Democrats. Time will tell if I'm wrong or right. When more Dems start speaking their honest minds about trans ideology (and I thought we were heading that way without voting for Trump), there's hope for the party. That said, if the Republicans would go back to socially open-minded policies and fiscal conservatism, i.e. the party they used to be, we all could probably live with the compromises between the two parties. Anyway, maybe you can tell I'm late middle-aged from my opinionated observations. There's something to be said for "institutional memory" (I hope, ha ha!). If you read this far, thanks for your comment and sorry for my long-windedness (and further ranting). Best to you!
Well, I am 66 myself, so I don't think I can call that middle age anymore! :) My daughter reminds me that I am old every so often. I love her still!
And before I forget, all long-winded responses most welcome.
I agree with any and all concerns about the Republican party, especially its extreme right wing, and its capture by Trump. As to the Democratic party, I don't think I am there yet. There appears to be little reckoning going on, and the party desperately needs one if it wants to present itself as a viable alternative given the global shift to the right that is going on. Is there a course correction going on? I don't know. But until I am more solidly behind saner positions taken by the Democrats, or at least the emergence of more centrist Democrats willing to take on the more extreme factions of the party, I will remain an independent and learn as much as I can to contribute to the conversation.
Best to you as well, Mildred. Take care.
How dare he accuse those concerned about a tremendous social and medical scandal harming tens of thousands of young vulnerable people of wanting to "wage a culture war." He obviously has no idea that this is actually gaslighting, sterilizing, mutilating, and otherwise weakening the health of so many children, teens and young adults at an alarming rate, and putting males in female sports and prisons, and rape crisis centers! He probably doesn't know the names Griffin Sivret or Paige McNabb, much less the hundreds of outspoken detransitioners (or the many thousands of quiet detransitioners), or desisters, or whistleblowers like Jamie Reed.
He needs to be informed, but he won't be if he doesn't even listen to those who try!
His daughter went to high school with my son and I fantasized using that as a means to get to speak with him, but my son downplays his friendship with her (they're seniors in college now), so I guess that fantasy's gone. I keep getting his incessant emails, saying he wants public input - but I don't think he really does.
And his "concern" for his "they/them" staffers is ridiculous. They will not be harmed by listening to your concerns, but my daughter suffers daily harm to her mind and body (taking testosterone at 18) because of the false messages she received and keeps receiving from society, and from NYC in particular. And so many more are being harmed every day. Do they deserve his concern?
And what about women in prison with violent men; do they deserve his concern?
I have no hopes for him being the candidate to save our city. Oh well.
"they don’t want to be enlightened; they want to belong"
I don't think this is correct. I think that they believe (and for good reason) that THEY are the enlightened ones, and that you are the one in need of enlightening.
Why good reason? Because everyone they know and trust shares their opinion on this. That's how they got to their opinion, not only on this issue, but on ALL issues. It's how we all do it, on everything.
To change one's mind, there has to be some cognitive dissonance: something else that is ALREADY BELIEVED to be equally true, but is in conflict. On trans, for many, this come from a relative or friend declaring a trans identity, this new identity conflicting with the old in ways that cannot be ignored. It could come from some conflicting principle like parental rights. But it has to be there, and to argue effectively, you first have to figure out what it is for the person you're trying to convince.
This is interesting, MarkS, about how to find the right talking points or seeds to plant—find the commonality or connection, first. Because I think it actually IS a function of “belonging.” The group or ideas to which we feel we belong, or belong to us, are the enlightened groups/ideas otherwise we wouldn’t belong or hold fast to them. What we are inviting people to do when we aim to provide this new information or perspective (and introduce cognitive dissonance) is to invite them to become destabilized and risk the security of belonging, the security of being with the enlightened ones, risk being ostracized. Who WANTS to have their worldview and sense of security challenged? I think abandonment fears are more powerful than we realize and that Lisa and you are on to something here.
Lisa’s conversation with and thoughts about the conservative politician is interesting in this regard, too.
The progressive bubble is very hard to penetrate.
Lisa, I’m so grateful to you for trying to talk with this candidate. I wish someone would do research on how best to shift these pro-trans views and open them to discussion. Do we need talking points?
Good on you for taking on a Brooklyn Dem candidate, who of course, has "they/them" staffers. Outside of asking whether his staff actually debates on issues, I suggest a few websites on a card, and mentions of documentaries like The Lost Boys, Behind the Looking Glass, and Jennifer Lahl's documentary about female detransitioners. The one tack I didn't read here is the child development, Piaget stages concept. The NIH has a Piaget, 4 stages of child development page on its website. "Wrong body from birth" just can't be an actual thought for a child in the sensory-motor or pre-operational stage. The cognition and language are not there. I had a similar response from Sen. Chuck Schumer when I emailed him about detransitioners. He spouted the usual, memorized from Richard/Rachel Levine, about suicides. I wrote back about segm.org, and the Swedish study of death records and the Cass Review, both written up there. Here's the gist of the 4 stages of development as well as the concept of object permanence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqUNy1Vcxa0&t=37s
Good for you and thanks, Ute!
This is excellent, Lisa. I have restacked.
Good for you for trying. Sounds to me like you gave him a glimpse of the monstrous machinery built by genderism, and he retreated into smugness rather than admit his beliefs might be mistaken. Dems need to be seen as good people, yes, which means they need to believe they are factually correct and morally superior.
This is such a great piece, Lisa, and I so appreciate everyone's comments. "Democrats Really Are for They/Them. Who's for…" hit my inbox in a week when I attended a screening of the pro ERA movie, Ratified, and also watched the new Daily Wire movie, Identity Crisis. I went to the former hoping to be educated about genuine benefits that would accrue to women from getting this amendment added to the constitution and came away even more convinced that the Democratic Party has truly lost the plot. I could not fathom how implementing the ERA would remedy any of the "issues" highlighted in the movie. For example, how would the ERA close the gender pay gap? (I know the 84c on the $ stat has been debunked plenty but continues to be used by Democrats as an appeal). Given that men never need abortions, how would the ERA remedy the loss of the federally protected right to an abortion. Over the past 5 years I have been truly red-pilled myself to the point where I instantly saw through all the appeals the film made. At the end, audience members were supposed to text and send a postcard to Joe Biden demanding that he publish the ERA. There was no way I could do this so I had to make an excuse as I hurried past the expectant postcard gatherer standing between me and the exit.
And then this weekend I watched Identity Crisis for free on X. As the mother of a same sex attracted teen girl who believes she's a boy born in a girl's body, it was as frustrating an experience as Ratified because there was zero space for childhood gender nonconformity, let alone homosexuality, in this documentary. The prevalence of autism and childhood trauma among "trans kids" was emphasized but not a word about the high prevalence of same sex attraction and how that often correlates with gender nonconformity. There was no space for proto-gay kids who fell under the spell of the ideology, nor for their parents. The only acceptable victims were either extremely young children misled by woke moms, heterosexual young adults who had detransitioned and non-affirming dads of the transed young children. As a consequence, I would not want to show my daughter this film because I think it would only further entrench her views. She would be unable to see herself or anyone like her (masculine girl, active, high-functioning, attracted to girls) represented within it.
Lisa, Identity Crisis made me think of your conversation with the very civil staffer at the conservative think tank. I so appreciate that you opened this dialogue with him. Much as I respect and appreciate Matt Walsh's efforts, they won't make an iota of a difference to anyone who hasn't already been red-pilled. Thinking back to when you asked us what I wanted to happen in 2025, one thing I really wish for is a documentary that includes same sex attracted girl and boys prominently in the narrative and that is framed from a liberal perspective. And, in my dreams, YOU would be the one deciding who gets interviewed and how the narrative is framed. Thank you for considering!
I think the LA fires are going to be to Hollywood actors and elite Dems, what October 7th (and campus protests that followed) were for Jewish Americans that had always been left-leaning nationwide. In both cases, in order to find the real coverage on what was happening to the homes and to the people they cared about, and to get the real news regarding the homeland they loved, they had to watch other news outlets/sources outside of legacy media to get the truth and the full picture that they deserved. This is when the large scale slap in the face awakening from woke begins. "Woke Marxism isn’t interested in making things work. In fact, it’s worse than that. Woke Marxism is, by definition, hostile to making things work." -James Lindsay
In really blue, especially west coast blue states, I think the candidate pool quality is pretty low-bar. I look through the voters pamphlet and think, really? Where is any background evidence that makes her an effective decision maker, and are those ear stretching loops in his ear lobes? Also, why do they/thems always get jobs as their staffers? Our outgoing, big bad and blue Governor seat is going to a clone of him and his staffers are staying on with the new guy. That will give them a 15 year run. These woke staffers are activists with power lanyards and the public should be made clear on who they really are. This part you wrote is spot-on ““liberalitis”—the fear of being seen as a bad person. They want to be on the right side of history, and they don’t yet realize that they’re not. They don’t want to have their worlds turned upside down, and have lost too much perspective to realize that it already has been: they are living in the upside-down..” I had a dog meetup group of friends that I had to leave because I woke up and that scared them. You went on to say… “Even listening to us in good faith could taint them, and imperil their chances of seeming good.” They loved me when I would echo Rachel Maddow's segment from the night before, but once I started questioning the DEI classes at my kids school, that's when our meetups started getting fewer. I would try to get my concerns such as safeguarding for kids in, and then hurry up and pepper in comments that I knew they liked to hear such as some horrible thing Trump said. In the end, I chose my kids' well-being and my sanity over belonging. It was easier before, or maybe not. It feels liberating to be out of those old social structures. My dog is still bummed about it, I can tell.