I totally agree that feminists and others from the left need to be showing up in greater numbers, and I also fear backlash from the right, especially regarding gay and lesbian people. But I don't think I agree with your comment about heteronormativity. Original text from Rufo: "Radical gender theorists argue that white, European men invented the “gender binary,” or division between man and woman, in order to oppress racial and sexual minorities. They believe that this system of “heteronormativity” must be exposed, critiqued, and deconstructed in order to usher in a world beyond the norms of heterosexual, middle-class society." Lisa, I get what you are saying that you resonate with the idea of challenging sex and gender roles that could reasonably be called "heteronormativity," but what I am understanding from Rufo is that the term "heteronormativity" INCLUDES the ridiculous concept about white men inventing the gender binary etc. And it includes the entire focus on inverting power structures that is part of "social justice" ideologies. This is a new realization for me from the past few weeks, and one that resonates with my personal communications. I have heard the "heteronormative" argument used from progressive friends when I try to engage. At first it confused me. I have come to realize the word really means that entire package. And remember, they aren't talking about "deconstructing" sex/gender roles from 1950. They are talking about 2022, when gay marriage and other non-"heteronormative" relationships have been greatly embraced by our society.
I catch your drift, and you're not the first person to bring this up to me. However, he's picking examples of how the useful concept of heteronormativity can be co-opted by radicals. And what I'm saying is: the pushback against gender identity ideology can also be, and is being, co-opted by radicals (from the other side). Recall that Justice Thomas set his sights on same-sex marriage. That Andrew Sullivan and others have been saying we may see a roll-back on cultural acceptance for gay people because the left has gone so far, and because the right is pushing back with equal (or greater force). So I think it's very important that we wrest some of the good ideas from the extremes of both sides and write a guide that honors feminists, lesbians and gays, transsexuals who oppose gender identity ideology. I don't feel they are represented in work like this, and I fear that if the left press and all these other left-leaning institutions don't start making some concessions and participating, we're gonna get Justice Thomas's view of the world.
Overall, of course I agree with your concerns. I am very worried about the backlash that has started, as predicted by Sullivan and other observers of our culture. We need to get that guide you mention written and out there. Even if his guide was flawless, it still has his name on it, which immediately invalidates it to people on the left.
That's true, too. Though one of the points I want to make is that we can't dismiss something just because of who it came from. But, yes, you're right that he's talking about more than heteronormativity, he's talking about the idea that white people invented it, when there are homophobic cultures all over the globe.
Also, Rufo mentions heteronormativity again, and includes quotes from queer academics. From Rufo:
Heteronormativity: Radical gender theorists argue that white European men have created a system of “compulsory heterosexuality,” monogamous marriage, and middle-class family norms that are, in actuality, instruments of power, domination, and oppression.
“Modern Western societies appraise sex acts according to a hierarchical system of sexual value. Marital, reproductive heterosexuals are alone at the top erotic pyramid. Clamouring below are unmarried monogamous heterosexuals in couples, followed by most other heterosexuals. Solitary sex floats ambiguously. The powerful nineteenth-century stigma on masturbation lingers in less potent, modified forms, such as the idea that masturbation is an inferior substitute for partnered encounters. Stable, long-term lesbian and gay male couples are verging on respectability, but bar dykes and promiscuous gay men are hovering just above the groups at the very bottom of the pyramid. The most despised sexual castes currently include transsexuals, transvestites, fetishists, sadomasochists, sex workers such as prostitutes and porn models, and the lowliest of all, those whose eroticism transgresses generational boundaries.” Gayle Rubin, “Thinking Sex”
“I argue that compulsory ‘white’ heterosexuality, the highly regulated and ritualized practice of channelling European women’s sexuality toward monogamous unions with men of the same race, is one of the primary ways they are compelled to perform ‘white’ feminine sexuality. Consistent with gender, ethnic and race expectations, and at times across class divisions, European women are expected to demonstrate their loyalty to whiteness and patriarchy.” Katerina Deliovsky, “Compulsory ‘White’ Heterosexuality: The Politics of Racial and Sexual Loyalty”
Thanks for this article. I'm pretty left leaning. I don't hate trans people. I don't want to return to the 1950s. I think a world where men feel free to express femininity (wear dresses, make up, long hair) and women masculinity is fantastic. I'm worried about medicalization of gender nonconforming and entrenching stereotypes as biological fact. That seems to be exactly backwards to me. And very confusing for kids.
Fantastic and insightful, again, thank you for writing all these essays!
It looks to me as if the noble human value: protect the weak and vulnerable, which most cultures support, has been weaponized in that "protect" has been defined as socially transitioning (which seems to make gender dysphoria last longer and has not been shown to improve mental health) and medical intervention (which has not been shown to reliably improve mental health, gender dysphoria or quality of life in studies, at least with the screening protocols used for those studies, and the affirmative model currently in use the US does even less screening and long term outcomes aren't known). And of course the physical harm of medical intervention is huge, your liver, kidneys, endocrine system, cardiovascular system, etc., don't care who you think you are, they just are reacting to toxins being poured into them.
The language has been hijacked. Care for people who are trans-identified or gender dysphoric is not identical to treating them as if they had a different biological sex or medically/cosmetically altering them. It is one way of intervening, and for young people who have their self perceptions constantly evolving and growing, I have yet to see evidence that medical intervention at these young ages (< 25 or maybe older depending on maturity) is appropriate. I see people who wish they'd had it at younger ages, but many more (certainly for childhood onset, adolescent onset is unknown) who wished they had it and now are glad they didn't, and no way to distinguish when they are younger....
Well, you know all this. I am hoping to reach the left--my people. Thank you so much for your essays, I am using them in my attempts!
Bravo! But also (and this is from a person fresh from the middle of the Mark Mason book, The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck), I found myself responding with a bit of exasperation (a red flag, I've found, signalling time for a bit of my own self-reflection) while reading the initial paragraphs of your piece. I'm afraid that there's possibly a general trend towards the unhealthy practice of making everyone other than oneself responsible for one's emotions. And that is bad news for a pluralistic nation that relies on principles like Free Speech to muddle its way towards survival, by making collective decisions in response to the many conundrums of an extremely complex Universe - and attempting to do this "by committee," rather than following clear guidance from some omniscient leader, who is acknowledged as such by a clear majority of actors within that nation. In other words, perhaps we need to collectively grow up? Perhaps the problem with the increased secularization of our Western societies is a denial of how much of daily human existence involves mysteries, the assumption that every phenomenon is concretely "real" in a specific way, so that ANY belief that contradicts one's own is so WRONG that the person holding it must be restrained even to the point of barring them from expressing themselves to anyone else who wishes to listen . . . and eventually, as implied by such censorious attitudes, eliminated from any contact with our world at all (even as a memory). No forgiveness, no opportunities left open for the "sinner" to change or grow, no curiosity about what value even the most repugnant and upsetting perspectives might contribute to humankind's ongoing project of innovation and assembling useful knowledge. Ironic that those who profess 100% reliance on material evidence and immunity from any faith-based reasoning so quickly begin to behave in precisely the same manner as the worst of theocrats. The Hubris that the most earnest of us constantly slip into is so difficult for us to detect in ourselves because we're so blinded by the glaring hypocrisy of others. So, how to approach individuals like Rufo in a way that he can hear our warning that his campaign may well fail because he's leaving potential resources on the table by alienating too many who might otherwise help him build a peaceful and more just consensus? That is the question. As a very wise economist has recently pointed out with a new book, all the most weighty decisions we are all called to make in life involve "wild problems," full of unknown unknowns and phenomena that stubbornly resist measurement. A great deal of humility and forgiveness of others is required in the face of them, and the transgender question is no different. (see Wild Problems: A Guide to the Decisions That Define Us by Russ Roberts)
Indeed. ICYMI and in the same vein - or vain as the case may be - you might also like Amy Alkon's "Unf*ckology: A Field Guide to Living with Guts and Confidence Kindle Edition":
Big part of the problem these days is too many "think" that being offended qualifies as trump - you'll excuse the term. A pithy response from Stephen Fry:
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."
And Jonathan Rauch had something similar though less "pithy":
“Those who claim to be hurt by words must be led to expect nothing as compensation. Otherwise, once they learn they can get something by claiming to be hurt, they will go into the business of being offended.”
Heather: "The Hubris that the most earnest of us constantly slip into is so difficult for us to detect in ourselves because we're so blinded by the glaring hypocrisy of others."
Takes some integrity and intellectual honesty - both of which are rather thin on the ground these days - to even consider that we each might be more a part of the problem than of the solution, that we might be laboring under misapprehensions of our own, that we might have some "problematic" unexamined assumptions that really don't hold much water at all. As the inimitable Mark Twain once put it:
“What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.”
Ah, yes, paragraph breaks! I've heard that suggestion before . . . I fear that one of the many ripples I send out into the world is added eye strain . . .
So pleased that a version of this is appearing in a mainstream media outlet ( https://archive.ph/ifcVX#selection-1791.0-1791.9 ). I read it this morning, while happily wearing my new "adult human weirdo" t-shirt (recommended by those fine folks at Heterodorx). I think most people just wanna get along, so there is hope.
I totally agree that feminists and others from the left need to be showing up in greater numbers, and I also fear backlash from the right, especially regarding gay and lesbian people. But I don't think I agree with your comment about heteronormativity. Original text from Rufo: "Radical gender theorists argue that white, European men invented the “gender binary,” or division between man and woman, in order to oppress racial and sexual minorities. They believe that this system of “heteronormativity” must be exposed, critiqued, and deconstructed in order to usher in a world beyond the norms of heterosexual, middle-class society." Lisa, I get what you are saying that you resonate with the idea of challenging sex and gender roles that could reasonably be called "heteronormativity," but what I am understanding from Rufo is that the term "heteronormativity" INCLUDES the ridiculous concept about white men inventing the gender binary etc. And it includes the entire focus on inverting power structures that is part of "social justice" ideologies. This is a new realization for me from the past few weeks, and one that resonates with my personal communications. I have heard the "heteronormative" argument used from progressive friends when I try to engage. At first it confused me. I have come to realize the word really means that entire package. And remember, they aren't talking about "deconstructing" sex/gender roles from 1950. They are talking about 2022, when gay marriage and other non-"heteronormative" relationships have been greatly embraced by our society.
I catch your drift, and you're not the first person to bring this up to me. However, he's picking examples of how the useful concept of heteronormativity can be co-opted by radicals. And what I'm saying is: the pushback against gender identity ideology can also be, and is being, co-opted by radicals (from the other side). Recall that Justice Thomas set his sights on same-sex marriage. That Andrew Sullivan and others have been saying we may see a roll-back on cultural acceptance for gay people because the left has gone so far, and because the right is pushing back with equal (or greater force). So I think it's very important that we wrest some of the good ideas from the extremes of both sides and write a guide that honors feminists, lesbians and gays, transsexuals who oppose gender identity ideology. I don't feel they are represented in work like this, and I fear that if the left press and all these other left-leaning institutions don't start making some concessions and participating, we're gonna get Justice Thomas's view of the world.
Overall, of course I agree with your concerns. I am very worried about the backlash that has started, as predicted by Sullivan and other observers of our culture. We need to get that guide you mention written and out there. Even if his guide was flawless, it still has his name on it, which immediately invalidates it to people on the left.
That's true, too. Though one of the points I want to make is that we can't dismiss something just because of who it came from. But, yes, you're right that he's talking about more than heteronormativity, he's talking about the idea that white people invented it, when there are homophobic cultures all over the globe.
Also, Rufo mentions heteronormativity again, and includes quotes from queer academics. From Rufo:
Heteronormativity: Radical gender theorists argue that white European men have created a system of “compulsory heterosexuality,” monogamous marriage, and middle-class family norms that are, in actuality, instruments of power, domination, and oppression.
“Modern Western societies appraise sex acts according to a hierarchical system of sexual value. Marital, reproductive heterosexuals are alone at the top erotic pyramid. Clamouring below are unmarried monogamous heterosexuals in couples, followed by most other heterosexuals. Solitary sex floats ambiguously. The powerful nineteenth-century stigma on masturbation lingers in less potent, modified forms, such as the idea that masturbation is an inferior substitute for partnered encounters. Stable, long-term lesbian and gay male couples are verging on respectability, but bar dykes and promiscuous gay men are hovering just above the groups at the very bottom of the pyramid. The most despised sexual castes currently include transsexuals, transvestites, fetishists, sadomasochists, sex workers such as prostitutes and porn models, and the lowliest of all, those whose eroticism transgresses generational boundaries.” Gayle Rubin, “Thinking Sex”
“I argue that compulsory ‘white’ heterosexuality, the highly regulated and ritualized practice of channelling European women’s sexuality toward monogamous unions with men of the same race, is one of the primary ways they are compelled to perform ‘white’ feminine sexuality. Consistent with gender, ethnic and race expectations, and at times across class divisions, European women are expected to demonstrate their loyalty to whiteness and patriarchy.” Katerina Deliovsky, “Compulsory ‘White’ Heterosexuality: The Politics of Racial and Sexual Loyalty”
What a relief to have found a voice of sanity, integrity and compassion. Thank you.
Thanks for this article. I'm pretty left leaning. I don't hate trans people. I don't want to return to the 1950s. I think a world where men feel free to express femininity (wear dresses, make up, long hair) and women masculinity is fantastic. I'm worried about medicalization of gender nonconforming and entrenching stereotypes as biological fact. That seems to be exactly backwards to me. And very confusing for kids.
Fantastic and insightful, again, thank you for writing all these essays!
It looks to me as if the noble human value: protect the weak and vulnerable, which most cultures support, has been weaponized in that "protect" has been defined as socially transitioning (which seems to make gender dysphoria last longer and has not been shown to improve mental health) and medical intervention (which has not been shown to reliably improve mental health, gender dysphoria or quality of life in studies, at least with the screening protocols used for those studies, and the affirmative model currently in use the US does even less screening and long term outcomes aren't known). And of course the physical harm of medical intervention is huge, your liver, kidneys, endocrine system, cardiovascular system, etc., don't care who you think you are, they just are reacting to toxins being poured into them.
The language has been hijacked. Care for people who are trans-identified or gender dysphoric is not identical to treating them as if they had a different biological sex or medically/cosmetically altering them. It is one way of intervening, and for young people who have their self perceptions constantly evolving and growing, I have yet to see evidence that medical intervention at these young ages (< 25 or maybe older depending on maturity) is appropriate. I see people who wish they'd had it at younger ages, but many more (certainly for childhood onset, adolescent onset is unknown) who wished they had it and now are glad they didn't, and no way to distinguish when they are younger....
Well, you know all this. I am hoping to reach the left--my people. Thank you so much for your essays, I am using them in my attempts!
Bravo! But also (and this is from a person fresh from the middle of the Mark Mason book, The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck), I found myself responding with a bit of exasperation (a red flag, I've found, signalling time for a bit of my own self-reflection) while reading the initial paragraphs of your piece. I'm afraid that there's possibly a general trend towards the unhealthy practice of making everyone other than oneself responsible for one's emotions. And that is bad news for a pluralistic nation that relies on principles like Free Speech to muddle its way towards survival, by making collective decisions in response to the many conundrums of an extremely complex Universe - and attempting to do this "by committee," rather than following clear guidance from some omniscient leader, who is acknowledged as such by a clear majority of actors within that nation. In other words, perhaps we need to collectively grow up? Perhaps the problem with the increased secularization of our Western societies is a denial of how much of daily human existence involves mysteries, the assumption that every phenomenon is concretely "real" in a specific way, so that ANY belief that contradicts one's own is so WRONG that the person holding it must be restrained even to the point of barring them from expressing themselves to anyone else who wishes to listen . . . and eventually, as implied by such censorious attitudes, eliminated from any contact with our world at all (even as a memory). No forgiveness, no opportunities left open for the "sinner" to change or grow, no curiosity about what value even the most repugnant and upsetting perspectives might contribute to humankind's ongoing project of innovation and assembling useful knowledge. Ironic that those who profess 100% reliance on material evidence and immunity from any faith-based reasoning so quickly begin to behave in precisely the same manner as the worst of theocrats. The Hubris that the most earnest of us constantly slip into is so difficult for us to detect in ourselves because we're so blinded by the glaring hypocrisy of others. So, how to approach individuals like Rufo in a way that he can hear our warning that his campaign may well fail because he's leaving potential resources on the table by alienating too many who might otherwise help him build a peaceful and more just consensus? That is the question. As a very wise economist has recently pointed out with a new book, all the most weighty decisions we are all called to make in life involve "wild problems," full of unknown unknowns and phenomena that stubbornly resist measurement. A great deal of humility and forgiveness of others is required in the face of them, and the transgender question is no different. (see Wild Problems: A Guide to the Decisions That Define Us by Russ Roberts)
Heather: "The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck)"
Indeed. ICYMI and in the same vein - or vain as the case may be - you might also like Amy Alkon's "Unf*ckology: A Field Guide to Living with Guts and Confidence Kindle Edition":
https://www.amazon.com/Unf-ckology-Field-Living-Confidence-ebook/dp/B073NZGQST
Big part of the problem these days is too many "think" that being offended qualifies as trump - you'll excuse the term. A pithy response from Stephen Fry:
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/706825-it-s-now-very-common-to-hear-people-say-i-m-rather
And Jonathan Rauch had something similar though less "pithy":
“Those who claim to be hurt by words must be led to expect nothing as compensation. Otherwise, once they learn they can get something by claiming to be hurt, they will go into the business of being offended.”
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/5539805-those-who-claim-to-be-hurt-by-words-must-be
Heather: "The Hubris that the most earnest of us constantly slip into is so difficult for us to detect in ourselves because we're so blinded by the glaring hypocrisy of others."
Yeah: "We have seen the enemy. And he is us":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_(comic_strip)
Takes some integrity and intellectual honesty - both of which are rather thin on the ground these days - to even consider that we each might be more a part of the problem than of the solution, that we might be laboring under misapprehensions of our own, that we might have some "problematic" unexamined assumptions that really don't hold much water at all. As the inimitable Mark Twain once put it:
“What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.”
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/738123-what-gets-us-into-trouble-is-not-what-we-don-t
En passant, something of a suggestion - you may want to add some paragraph breaks to your comments ... 😉
Ah, yes, paragraph breaks! I've heard that suggestion before . . . I fear that one of the many ripples I send out into the world is added eye strain . . .
So pleased that a version of this is appearing in a mainstream media outlet ( https://archive.ph/ifcVX#selection-1791.0-1791.9 ). I read it this morning, while happily wearing my new "adult human weirdo" t-shirt (recommended by those fine folks at Heterodorx). I think most people just wanna get along, so there is hope.