I really get the letter writer’s viewpoint. Yet I am more and more alarmed by the fact that so many gender critical voices I have followed for years have now become believers that the Covid vaccine is what causes harm, not Covid, and similar conspiracy theories that have now become so mainstream even “liberals” barely oppose them. I’m truly politically homeless. It seems like you can’t have one opinion without signing on to a bunch of other opinions anymore. I’m afraid to say one thing to my conservative friends and another thing to my liberal friends. And people really do reject each other over “saying the wrong thing”. And they gossip about so and so having such and such an opinion CAN YOU BELIEVE IT, etc.
So I’m in my 40’s and have concluded I need to hang out more with my 70-something parents and their friends, who actually seem to accept their friends despite not all of them thinking the same about everything, and they also discuss stuff rather than high fiving each other for being on the right side of history.
My 18 year old “woke” daughter actually expressed horror that I was supportive of Israel. I have friends who would be equally horrified if I expressed sadness over the civilian deaths in Gaza. It’s a crazy time.
I support Lisa not because I agree with every single thing she says but because I agree with her, erm, “broadly” on the gender critical issue. I do also agree with many of the post-liberal letter writer’s points about a slippery slope of “tolerance” that makes it very difficult to clearly condemn harmful sexual fetishes and paraphilias. I am sooooo not “sex positive” anymore. But I respect Lisa’s, and anyone else’s, right to have a different opinion. And you know what? I want to HEAR THE ARGUMENT. I don’t want to hear “THAT’S JUST WRONG, PERIOD”. I want to know why, even if it seems blatantly obvious to the opinion holder.
Lisa is willing to make the arguments for her beliefs and also to change them as she gets new evidence. THIS is why I support her and why I support both broadly liberal and broadly conservative people doing the same. They are increasingly rare.
Thank you. I don't know if I'm paraphilia-supportive. I'm mostly just trying to be practical. And also: what I really want is for GNC people to be unremarkable. Just accept the masculine girl and the feminine boy and not talk about it. But that's a totally different category than AGP, which I guess is why so many people want a giant trans umbrella and don't want to break it down into smaller categories, so they can gain acceptance...
As a trans widow I possibly could be accused of having a bias but what I do know is that many (all?) of us were ill treated and most were lied to by our partner. We have no support and very few people interested to hear or care about our experience. I agree that being GNC should be unremarkable rather than categorised. The giant trans umbrella is not inclusive, it divides everyone into gender categories and oft denies reality. I understand your approach, we do not come to a conclusion by focusing on our beliefs over reality and that is the essence of an unbiased approach.
I believe your opinion about this matter is of much greater weight than that of people who have not had these men in their lives. Even coworkers of trans identified men often have issues with them (often bc they demand to use the female restroom). Denying his fantasy creates a narcissistic injury, and he becomes dangerous and goes on a campaign to damage the business or coworkers.
What knowledge is more salient than direct experience 💕
I had AGP for a long time and when it hit its worse, I read blogs from trans widows to remind myself what was most important to me -- my wife and children.
I would very much like to hear your experience if you wish to tell it.
There was a Canadian high school teacher who wore massive Z-cup prosthetic breasts in class. We conclude it's improper because he's a teacher teaching minors. What if he's a college professor teaching adult students? Would that be acceptable?
What if he wears a dress instead of Z-cup breasts?
What if a man wears a dress in a public, say, in a train or a bus?
I think most women will feel uneasy and move away if possible. It just goes against our survival instinct.
What if a man just walking naked on the street?
Where do we draw the line about what's acceptable and what's not?
I can't think of a logical reason why a man shouldn't be able to wear a dress. I feel ashamed when it makes me squeamish when I do see a man wearing a dress. I think about how society must have felt the same way about women wearing pants before it was commonly accepted. I think that there is a difference between defying sex/gender stereotypes with behavior and dress and an extreme attempt to mimic the opposite sex via surgery and cross sex hormones and insisting that others indulge in their delusion by using cross sex pronouns. A man can wear a dress without giving the appearance of a woman. As soon as someone insists they are the opposite gender (or some other imaginary gender), I am ok with that disqualifying them from working with children. But there is all kinds of gray area. massive Z-cup prosthetic breasts- no thank you around my children and I wouldn't hire you. If people choose to dress outlandishly, I don't think they deserve legal protections from being dismissed from a job. It is reasonable to expect people to conform to a minimal level of societal norms. Some make the argument that it is hypocritical to deny men to freely have breast implants and feminizing surgery when it's fine for women to do it. My question is- why is it ok for women to undergo medically unnecessary cosmetic surgery? Why are we all going with it? It's a good example of the "slippery slope" of adults making (whatever) bodily choices with informed consent being ok.
I just want to go back to the old days, when I could see a man in a dress and move away from his vicinity and no one accused me of being hateful. that my friends now fall over themselves to kiss his ring makes my stomach turn.
I'd say you need to trust your instincts. Why feel ashamed because you cannot play along with a man's fantasy?
Here are my thoughts:
1) Women wearing pants is different from man wearing dresses. I just listened to "A good-humored conversation between Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U32-vZFy7BQ. In the discussion Richard mentioned there's no moral obligation if someone lives alone, like Tom Hanks in the movie Castaway. However, when a person starts interacting with other people, there's moral obligation involved.
Women wearing pants don't pose any threat to man, even if they have short-cut hair. But if I see a man wearing a dress, and he doesn't like like a woman, I'd biased that he's likely having some mental health issue which would cause me to feel a potential threat. If a mean wears a dress and looks like a woman, then I'd feel even more dangerous. This is the reason why we need to have sex-based spaces. The minimal level, I think, is for a man to dress in a way to be respectful of women and girls, so that they can tell he's a sane man.
2) Why is it ok for women to undergo medically unnecessary cosmetic surgery? Cosmetic surgery has its risks, but women taking it will become more attractive, or they believe so. There's little irreversible harm. However it's completely a different game when men want to take it. First it's irreversible damage to men. Even adult man can be vulnerable and fall for the trans ideology and believe they're women. This is why we need to have safeguarding and first do no harm.
There is certainlyirreversible harm in breast implants and many other cosmetic procedures. It is like letting dr Frankenstein experiment on your body. I knew several men who wear skirts and dresses for comfort sake-that doesn’t make me uncomfortable. It’s the creepy vibe that an actual agp gives off that is not publicly acceptable-the dress is almost neutral.
Agreed there is irreversible harm in cosmetic surgery- especially when they go wrong but even if surgery "goes" right. I know many women who are struggling with major health issues because of breast implants from years ago. Scottish men wear/wore kilts and that has caught on in the states to a limited extent (my husband doesn't wear one on a regular basis but does when we perform Celtic music or attend his Scottish society events. It's not distressing to see a man in a kilt which is basically a skirt.
Being naked in public is against the law. A man going to school with giant false breasts is a huge distraction, embarrassing and insulting to women and most schools would never allow such a bizarre disruption and flaunting of the dress code. No woman would be allowed such disrespectful impunity like wearing a bikini or a huge dildo to work or school. As for breast implants for women; they are very dangerous to one's health as they cause auto immune disease and other problems which is well documented. Maybe they should be banned, but docs make millions on them as well as all kinds of needless, injurious plastic surgery. Some men wear kilts which are like skirts. No problem. But trans people usually go so far as to try to impersonate women, which is committing identity fraud, identity theft, colonization and parasitism of women's sexual identity. This also falsifys reality and endangers women in multiple ways.
I conclude it’s inappropriate because the female students in the class do not deserve to have to be around a literally clown like display of ridiculous womanface. It’s degrading to them to be becoming real women while this man walks around in bimbo cosplay.
well articulated. Though I would make the argument also that we women could do all us women a favor by stopping the silly cosplay and ridiculous clown/womanface that is so common. Nobody needs to wear caked on makeup to be their "authentic selves" and if this were less common, it would be much more difficult for men to pose as women as well as alleviate mental health issues that come with attempting to attain unrealistic and unnatural beauty standards.
I've been in this "strange bedfellows" place for the past few years, politically speaking. As in, by opening my eyes to the reality of the gender wars, I've found myself nodding along with people who also, as you say, think COVID vaccines cause more harm than COVID itself. But what an interesting point you raise.
For myself, I actually have shifted multiple (formerly hyper partisan) opinions. I have noticed that the more I hear cult-like nonsense in blind support of "trans human rights", the more distrusting I am of simplistic narratives, and therefore I am more open to a diversity of viewpoints on other issues, too. COVID is a great example because while I am not an extremist (eg. It's complete nonsense to believe things like "the vaccines contain 5G chips"), I think we also have to acknowledge that vaccine injury is a real phenomenon. And that rolling out an inherently experimental new technology (mRNA vaccine) to an entire population is something worth being wary of, and we should be critical of voices that try to assure us there will be no unexpected long term effects (how could we possibly know at this stage?). And that people truly should have a choice whether to engage with experimental new technology, not be forced (either legally or socially) to accept novel new vaccine technology. I didn't have these beliefs before I realized I was so, so wrong about the trans stuff. It made me think: what else could I be wrong about? What other voices and opinions have I discarded without giving them real consideration?
My two cents on what is probably a side issue but -- there was so much about the vaccines that was just wrong.
I was just talking to someone about it a week ago and one observation I made -- since when do they encourage pregnant women to take ANYTHING, let alone a novel, new vaccine?
Here's a vaccine that is new, with a new method never used before -- and even though pregnant woman cannot ride a roller coaster, drink alcohol, or smoke a cigarette -- we're going to recommend she take this novel vaccine?
To protect against an illness that 99% of people get over without issue?
Thanks, I relate to this very much. Once I stopped outsourcing my views about gender (and for me, views about race at the same time) then everything became worth asking questions about. Vaccine injuries are a great example. It reminded me of the detransitioners, and how shut down their voices have been in the mainstream press. It was destabilizing for quite some time, but now I feel more comfortable, if also much more humble. As you say, what else could I be wrong about? Probably lots. But I'm not into throwing the baby out with the bathwater either and just finding another tribe with mirror opposite beliefs about different evil people. That seems to be one pathway that some disenchanted progressives take. I'm not throwing feminism out, feminism as I understand it anyway. Not becoming a MAGA Republican, though I have become less judgey about them and more curious. It has also felt good to examine, be critical of, but ultimately embrace my own not very conventional life because it's who I am. I'm OK with the freak flag, after all.
Yes! Absolutely. I love what you said about becoming "less judgey, more curious" about MAGA Republicans (and presumably other folks you may have dismissed in the past). It's so easy to fall into the trap of dehumanizing other people.
And it's especially icky when progressives fall into that trap, because there's usually a sanctimonious "well I'm on the side of human rights" justification to their dehumanizing speech. If you believe, for instance, that everyone who voted Trump is literally a vile and brainless monster, then ... what hope do you have for ever functioning in a society with multiple view points? How can you say compassion is a driving value if you believe a majority of your peers are either stupid or evil?
Yes, some people die from vaccines - have a fatal reaction or are chronically impaired, but.....millions more die or are impaired from the lack of being vaccinated. A million plus people in the USA died from Covid. Maybe a few dozen died or were disabled by the vaccine. So it's a toss of the dice: risk dying from covid or risk dying from the vaccine.
I agree with checking your untested beliefs. But I think the answer is to seek more reliable information. With mRNA vaccine as with any medical treatment you have an idea of what the risks could be. With early vaccines the risk was that you were actually introducing the disease to health person. That seemed really dangerous and early on it was. Because people don't have scientific literacy (and because science has become so complex) it's hard to understand why mRNA vaccines are inherently less dangerous than regular vaccines (because they don't introduce the pathogen like regular vaccines do, they just mimic the proteins in the pathogen to trigger the immune response). Which is not to say there isn't any risk but it's possible to make a solid general statement that they are less risky than traditional vaccines. The problem is people don't go beyond their opinions and anxieties to seek info: "something new sounds like a big risk. i don't like it." rather than taking the next step to understand the way the vaccines work. Similarly a position can resonate {"protect the trans kids") and you just accept that gender identity exists and that trans kids are suicidal etc and most folks don't actually check the research literature nor are they able to understand the results in scientific jargon.
Yes, broadly speaking I agree with your point about needing to seek new information.
Not to go too deep into the rabbit hole here, but a lack of education/understanding about what mRNA technology entails is not the only reason to be skeptical of literally cutting edge technology. It's come to light recently that the spike protein itself can be harmful in myriad ways (the spike protein is what the mRNA vaccine produces). If you haven't heard of this before then here is one peer reviewed paper you could read to get a bit of an idea:
... and, colloquially, I've now met several people who have been injured by vaccines, and have encountered many many more suffering from the ill understood mechanisms of long COVID.
I only know so much about this because my husband was rendered functionally disabled due to long COVID, and we've been learning a lot about it (including keeping up on the research). I was extremely pro vaccine, got my two shots in 2020/2021, including while breastfeeding my child, and only now am I realizing there were a lot more problems with the vaccine than we originally anticipated. So to be honest I feel really incensed on this specific issue because I feel lied to (by the CDC, by the scientific community, by ignorant policy makers, etc.) because they were simply not honest (or maybe they were just optimistic / unrealistic) about the potential for totally unknown adverse long term effects...
Not the point of this thread but felt it was worth sharing. Being skeptical of the COVID vaccine, and being critical of coercive politics around vaccine compliance, is NOT only the domain of crazy conspiracy nuts. Anyone who has had to directly live with the consequences is suffering in part due to the mass delusion of the majority. (Much like the people injured by the totally "life saving" practices of gender affirming care.)
I am (was) a longtime liberal and progressive. I'm only speaking for myself (and echoing something Lisa recently wrote) but finding out just how wrong the mainstream media and government and academia sources - the places I was taught to go to to do "fact checking" - were about what's happening with young people and gender, just how much misinformation they were publishing and the extents they were going to silence and smear people telling other true parts of a complex issue - completely destabilized my trust in journalism and institutions. If they were not telling the truth about this, what other topics - topics I don't have the time or ability to research - are getting the "gender treatment" in how they are being reported on and made into policy? I fully recognize the risk for getting pulled into conspiracy thinking or being misled in a different direction and I try to guard against that, but really, how do you do that? I don't believe covid vaccines have microchips or were worse than covid. But I think there are a lot of legitimate questions about how they should be used now and that we have not been given good information about them. Does that make me someone falling for conspiracy theories, someone traumatized by my experiences with the gender lies, or a more healthy and balanced skeptic? I fully admit I don't know, but I'm also not sure who is in a place to judge and draw the lines.
I’ve been processing the excellent points you and the other people replying to my comment have made. I have had the same experience of the door cracking open to distrust institutions I believed were completely trustworthy. The way I’ve been able to (hopefully) guard against falling into conspiracy theories is to find some people (like Eric Topol on Covid) who really do seem to be not only an expert in the subject matter of whatever issue is at hand, but balanced and fair in the way they discuss the issue: letting the evidence lead, painstakingly explaining their thought process, and acknowledging their errors when they happen. So I don’t trust WHO or CDC to tell me a wholly factual public health narrative but I have come to trust Dr. Topol. I similarly don’t reflexively trust the Democratic Party or the Fed in their narratives about the economy, but I think I usually get an honest and mostly reliable take from Paul Krugman. The problem is obviously that it takes time and effort to sort the honest experts from the “expert” shills, and one can become the other over time. It’s exhausting. I don’t have any answers but I do feel like I have to keep trying and not use shortcuts/heuristics to assess truth, whenever possible. Unfortunately our brains are wired to use heuristics to assess truth…
When you find yourself so sure that people who think the COVID vaccine causes injury are conspiracy theorists, please remember how it feels (or might feel if you haven't personally experienced it) to be on the receiving end of being cast as the crazy who doesn't go along with the mainstream narrative- the mainstream narrative that says that it's perfectly natural for anyone to choose their gender, that there are infinite genders to choose from, that biological sex isn't real or at least doesn't matter, that men should be allowed to play in women's sports as long as they "feel" like a woman, that schools should change students pronouns and names upon student request and should not "out" them to their parents but should deceive the parents, that ROGD doesn't exist. Have you been afraid to speak up ever with gender critical views? Have you ever been afraid to voice concerns about sharing preferred pronouns for fear of losing your job?
Now just imagine that there might be a world where people who are vaccine critical are having an experience that parallels their experience related to gender issues. "The science is settled" is the narrative that is used for both issues. But when you aren't allowed to question something, that is the time to be the most curious.
Believe me I know how hard it is to accept that we are being fed information that is not true and that once you realize this, you have a hard time knowing what to believe or trust and that is very unsettling.
The letter writer is correct in that no paraphilias are "harmless," or good.
We can't eliminate harm, or evil, from humanity. There is no social mechanism to effectively treat all paraphilias, or mental illnesses, or even physical illnesses. Humans gonna human, and a lot of human-ing is bad.
How are we going to live with our imperfect, or worse, brothers and sisters? We draw a line somewhere. Reality dictates we must be practical. How much of the population do we want to criminalize? To institutionalize or jail? Or merely disenfranchise? What overall good comes from more or less?
Some tolerate too much, others not enough.
I have drawn my own lines in the Gender Wars: Sex is real.
That pretty much covers it: Sex is real. People are weird!
I love the questions you've asked. And, yes, we must be practical. Living in a place with a lot of deinstitutionalized mentally ill people, some of them quite dangerous, makes me think sometimes institutionalization is important—but not if you're gonna put the male rapists in the women's institution! So maybe "sex is real, people are weird," should be the guiding principal beneath most policies...
The people who wanted to deinstitutionalize mental illness had the "best of intentions." I met many of them when I worked in government in Washington State. They were responding to excesses of harmful restraint in mental hospitals, so there really were abuses that needed to be addressed--but because of their self-blinding about how dangerous and harmful some mentally ill people can be, they came up with the (terribly) wrong solution. These policies were opposed by many families who had mentally ill family members and KNEW, but nobody cared. Didn't fit the narrative. And those people who believe we should "abolish prisons" also have the "best of intentions." These turn out to be disastrous policies because they deny Nina's basic point that humans are messed up and sometimes dangerous, and that we need policies that protect society, while allowing as much liberty as possible. We need to find balance, a process which will always be uncomfortable. We'll have different ideas about that balance and have to work it out. Questions that we cannot answer, as you put it. Yeah, in truth these days I feel uncomfortable with a man in a dress working at the co-op because of (um possibly incorrect!) assumptions I make about him, but it's just a dress and I wouldn't support any policy that bans him from wearing that dress to work, even if I as a customer may feel uncomfortable. That's on the liberty side. On the protective side, not ok for him to work in a g-strong. Progressivism, like many other ideologies, denies this basic and fundamental truth that people are messed up and that there is no utopia past or future which will ever once and for all fix this aspect of being in the human family. This is central to Nina's position, which I agree with. There won't be perfect fixes. But I have come to be critical of such thinking that prioritizes promoting the world people think SHOULD exist. Are they really the "best of intentions" or is it the ego of the reformers?
I agree that those who are mentally ill and commit crimes need to be in a restricted environment. Deinstutionalizing and shutting psychiatric hospitals without providing adequate community housing and support has led to much suffering and disgraceful homeless - and in some cases avoidable criminality. But some with serious mental illness have lived a much more dignified and rewarding life in supportive housing in the community. The promise of deinstitutionalization was betrayed - a lie - as the promise of community care was not provided.
Yes, that's an great point--only part of the vision was realized, closing down the institutions. But the community care piece never was funded as promised.
The letter writer is incorrect: the researchers who define and use the word "paraphilia" do not see it as meaning something that is inherently harmful. [1]
Where a paraphilia is harmful or distressing to oneself or others, the term used is "paraphilic disorder". Blanchard writes about this reason to distinguish between paraphilia and paraphilic disorder [2]. To paraphrase, it was to avoid the absurdity where a cross-dresser could not be considered a transvestite, if they were a happy cross-dresser. Indeed, there have been many times in history, such as in the glam-metal era, when transvestitic expression found itself as part of a desirable counter-culture.
There are inherently harmful paraphilias, however autogynephilia is not one of them, "Some paraphilic behaviors are illegal or potentially harmful to other people; other paraphilic behaviors are both legal and harmless. Autogynephilia is one of the latter type of paraphilias.” [3]
[1] “A paraphilia [“any intense and persistent sexual interest other than sexual interest in genital stimulation or preparatory fondling with phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting human partners”] is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for having a paraphilic disorder, and a paraphilia by itself does not necessarily justify or require clinical intervention” American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.) pp. 685-6.
Why would one automatically subscribe to any definition endorsed by the DSM!? Let them label "hysterics," "nymphomaniacs," "refrigerator mothers" and all the other misogynistic terms that have destroyed lives, but who would unquestionably go along with such often malicious B.S.?
AND things that are not paraphilias can certainly be harmful to relationships. AGP wouldn't be a problem in a relationship where the wife is also turned on by her husband in drag. Adultery (desire for novelty in partners) is not considered a mental illness or condition but it does damage relationships. Taken to an extreme it does become abnormal in the form of sex addiction. And where that line gets drawn between normal and excessive will be based on social ideas of normality.
The DSM changes over time and like a dictionary, changes it's definitions and adds words. Illness (physical and mental) also develops and is described within culture. In the west we often chest/heart attack symptoms under stress where in Asia they exhibit other symptoms when under stress, because heart disease is less prevalent. We say "oh my god you nearly gave me a heart attack:"--that's not a saying in Asia. Same over time: Homosexuality isn't considered a mental illness anymore as when the DSM started in 1952 --it reflected the culture mores of that time. Today, there is a lot of acceptance of non-conventional things that (seem to) not hurt anyone. Getting aroused by feet is a paraphilia and not my thing but it seems pretty harmless in the scheme of things. I would say that's a harmless paraphilia.
Criminalization and institutionalization would be only appropriate where an actual crime was committed. Otherwise, we have to make our peace with the fact that humans are indeed weird as fuck. Social disapprobation has a role, though, if we care about the right of people not to get swept up into others’ paraphilias without consent. I draw a bright line between private and public spaces. A kink being enacted in public makes me a participant as a spectator, and that’s a violation of consent. I do not consent to be a part of random people’s kinks.
However, there are circumstances where a paraphilia can be practiced coercively in private spaces as well. There are too many stories from trans widows that confirm this, sadly. So many of them report being pressured to engage in sex acts that repulse them in order to help their partner “feel like a woman.” And given that AGP inherently craves the validation of others, it is more likely to lead to coercing others’ participation than, say, a foot fetish.
You don't have to criminalize paraphilas, but you can ostracize and marginalize them so they don't become normalized and mainstreamed to infect others. What are they talking about: "Love is love" They are talking about sex, which can be something quite different from love; as in rape for instance. In some cases sex isn't love - far from it- it's sado-masochism or bondage and discipline, which is extreme hate, akin to torture. While in many cases sex is an affectionate, loving bonding between two individuals this is hardly what trans people usually mean, practice with their duplicitous posturing which actually mocks sincere, honest sexual relationships.
(4) People are weird and there is a line, somewhat difficult to pin down but in the neighborhood of "if you are male you have to respect women's and children's need for safety."
Yes but I think is implicit in (1) since I think it is indisputable that males have a propensity to physically/sexually harm others, and females are vulnerable. That is the justification for single sex facilities. It is of course true that they are a threat to males as well, including transwomen. My suggested solution to that is pragmatic steps to limit harm to everyone, including transgender people.
And *be seen* to be doing the right thing. It’s not enough these days to actually do the right thing, you have to be conscious of the fact that you have to be seen to be doing the right thing. Hence why every parish I know has strategically frosted glass doors to their offices and confessionals so that they can meet privately as needed but still be surveilled by anyone passing by.
I think we should stick to discussing the medical intervention of young people and vulnerable adults with life altering and dangerous treatments that do not meet medical standards given their risk/benefit/alternatives/unknown outcome if do nothing.
We all have different philosophies about the rest, many of which are in conflict. We can spend lots of time trying to reach common ground on those.
I see a lot of people viewing this issue as a stepping stone to agreement or change about other things, larger issues, world views.
What is the medical evidence behind benefit?
For MTF on estrogen they're not seeing it. For ftm testosterone is an antidepressant and yet results are small and seem short lived. Bodies are being harmed. Mastectomies for girls who have no capability to understand breastfeeding or motherhood or their future interest in it. Castration of young men who have been told falsely it's the only way forward for them.
We agree on these being problems. We can disagree on other things which can distract.
I’m always a little baffled that people think it’s somehow “pro AGP” to recognize that there’s really no way to police how a man dresses without crossing over into really regressive dress codes. In discussing AGP-gate at Genspect, Stella OMalley asked how exactly it would have been possible to ban Phil Illy from the conference. It seems to me it’s a little bit like the arguments in favour of free speech- I have to put up with things I don’t like and that are potentially harmful in order to protect my own rights.
I thought the whole AGPgate thing was pretty silly to be honest. Who shows up at a conference all about gender non conformity (and gender issues more broadly) and gets offended at seeing a man in a dress? Seriously?
They were offended because he’s a gross person and was touting his creepy book at a conference full of people who have been harmed by people like him. I don’t know what gendpect could have done, but people annoyance is not unfounded
Nonsense. A man in a dress is a public nuisance, against which laws exist. A man in a woman’s locker room is an invasion of privacy. Laws exist there, too.
I draw the line at changing pronouns, demanding others accept them as something they are not, and of course, any threatening behavior (including entering women’s spaces)
- More of this kinda reality-based statement would force transidiocy into the bin where it belongs
- Less of this kind of statement (ie reality) is why we’re having this idiocy to begin with.
- Well, that and the rise of the empathy voter more worried about “that poor....” whatever today than about safe streets, secure borders, good schools and a government based on reality: eg feminism and 19A.
FTA: There are two main categories of nuisance: public and private. A public nuisance is an act that unreasonably interferes with the health, safety, morals, and/or property rights of the general public.
Men and women should be free to wear clothing that is comfortable for them, a man in a dress is not necessarily a nuisance (though an agp in a dress might be) and I certainly would not want my own clothing policed, as that is regressive-not a direction I want to go in. I’d rather these men be socially sanctioned vs legal sanctions. As for entering our women’s spaces-that is certainly a violation and shows the man is dangerous (willing to violate women’s boundaries
Nope. If society cares about its future it must set appropriate examples for its youth. A man in a dress is not an appropriate example of any mature society. Empathy is not a good enough reason to screw-up future generations. There is a difference between “liberty” and “license;” the empathy voters have forgotten this or never learned it.
We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one! 70 years ago you could be saying that no woman should be seen in pants or they would screw up further generations. Your current position is equally absurd. Morality does not reside in clothing but in the person wearing it.
As to dresses v pants, it’s all part of the feminism destroying Western Civ, beginning with suffrage and the empathy vote and here we are: “Oh that poor....” illegal alien, incarcerated thug, murderer who had a bad childhood, murdered who had post-partum, failed male swimmer, crappy teacher, illiterate “graduate,”... an excuse for every violation of society. The foundation of every social pathology in the West today? Women’s suffrage. Pandora & Eve are women for a reason. For millennia, Western Civ rose without suffrage. For a century we have been reversing that rise. Why? 19A, feminism, and now its inherent loss of fertility. Government is about force. Nothing in evolution prepared women for the use of force; it’s why there never has been a successful matriarchy. For what has evolution prepared women? To do whatever it takes to pass on their genes, which is why any search of “mean girls” gets pages of responses. If you’re even the least bit sentient & aware, you realize that we can have a safe, secure, educated and prosperous society ... or ... women’s suffrage.
Also, you’ve no idea whether there’s been a successful matriarchy, because matriarchy doesn’t violently expand itself in every directly, ruining and wasting precious human life in the way that your precious powerful government does. The success of a matriarchy would be measured by different scale than the success of western civilization. Anyhow, I’m going to bow out of this conversation, as I don’t find it entertaining to explain basic human decency and the right of women to vote to someone who isn’t intelligent enough to Intuit that on their own
Ps, you have no clue about eve, as I’m sure you got your info from the English translation of the Bible which is woefully inaccurate in carrying the deep esoteric meaning of the text of the Bible.
Yeah you aren’t going to get me to agree with you that feminism - literally the movement that gave me legal protection of my basic rights as a human being…destroyed the west 😂 truly hope you do not have daughters or that they are mentally oriented against your rather ignorant, too cocksure opinions! There are of course elements of feminism that were destructive-but feminism itself is nothing but the push for women to be treated as full humans and if you aren’t behind that, you are a sad discontented specimen indeed
I am in no way suggesting that men can actually be women or that they should be in women’s spaces. I’m not sure I understand your comment. Are you saying that it should be against the law for a man to wear a dress?
What Alex Scipio saying quite plainly is that women never should have gotten the vote; that by gaining human rights women have ruined society and political life. I don't like seeing men in womanface any more than I like seeing people in blackface or Asianface or any other appropriation and mockery of any other group. Imagine having to sit down with a man in blackface at work?! Galling. But I don't think there's anything we can do about men parading around in dresses and womenface except to shun or ostracize them the way we've done with blackface, asianface and minstrels, but people can wear what they want short of exposing themselves for sexual gratification, which is against the law.
One of the major issues being missed by every trans discussion I have seen is this:
The human brain completely rewires itself during and immediately after puberty. Puberty blockers block this process. By allowing blockers, not only are we sterilizing children, we are terminating normal brain development.
If your desired future is the zombification of America, you’re supporting the cause that will get us there. But if you support a future of progress and brains well used, everyone supporting the trans cult is supporting the opposition to that future.
It’s true. But as a free society we should not enforce laws on harmless behavior (dressing out of the norm), but on harmful behavior. It takes a light touch if you want to maintain your freedoms
How is a man dressing as & pretending to be a woman not behavior harmful to pre-pubescent children still figuring out the world, human interactions, and their role?
There are reasons humans rejected these behaviors from our beginnings until 5 minutes ago, reasons - doubtless - having their roots in evolution.
And how is it harmless railing against women gaining human rights and getting the vote? You sound just as dangerous to the welfare of women as the trans Taliban.
I think Lisa’s greatest success is demonstrated here, in the thoughtful and thought-provoking discussion that has arisen in this and so many other posts. Over time, I have had disagreements, sometimes strong ones, with points of view expressed here, whether by Lisa or others—and I am sure the same can be said of me by others here.
But over time, there are a few things that have guided me in a choice to stay engaged, though perhaps not read or listen to everything:
First, Lisa is dedicated, thoughtful, and sincere. Every journalist should aspire to what she aspires to here. She is on an earnest quest for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, to the best it can be ascertained, and recognizes this is a moving target.
Second, I have learned an enormous amount from participants here, and this has helped me better formulate my thoughts and express them to others who are not yet aware and/or are resistant to recognizing the grave harms to women, children, and families as the result of gender identity activism. Better yet, I have even made a friend with whom I chat on the phone every now and then. We have lively discussions, grounded in our personal experience, that teach us each to enlarge our thinking (and also a safe place to carp about those in our own circles of friends who just don’t get—or refuse even to talk about—these issues 😎).
Third, as I listen, read, learn, and speak with others, I have been able to formulate views that I have confidence are science-based and guide how I think, while at the same time striving to be open to learning something new that requires me to readjust those views. I do have some very strong views at this point, but I also keep in mind the mantra “what if you are wrong?”
Here are a handful of my current views, just to give an idea:
1. DEI should be abolished every place it lurks.
2. K-12 schools need a complete overhaul, including point 1. No child should be taught any of the tenets of gender identity as if they were fact. I would go further and say that tenets of gender identity should not be taught at all in the lower grades. These tenets should only be taught in high school, if at all, and as a low priority, when young people are at a developmental stage to engage productively with abstract concepts, and, even then these tenets must be taught as a highly contested theory with no foundation in scientific fact.
3. In my own advocacy, I center on the impact of gender identity ideology on the harms to women, children, and families. I am careful about who I accept as allies and will not promote people whose larger agendas I see as problematic on issues of critical importance to me, even if they may occasionally state something on these issues with which I might agree. My view is that there are plenty of excellent allies who don’t pose those problems.
4. Allied with 3, I am not interested in the issues related to paraphiliac individuals, except to the extent that these individuals present a public safety risk. In those cases, public safety must come first, and normalizing the mental health condition is not appropriate. Otherwise, this is out of my pay grade and a matter for the mental health profession. Folks with these conditions are entitled, as we all are, to receive the mental health care they need with competence and compassion and not guided by an activist agenda.
Well, as usual, I have gone on too long, so I’ll leave it there!
Accepting that paraphilias exist is not the same thing as "supporting" them. I watched a great recent interview with Az Hakeem, in support of his new book, and he talks about some paraphilias I'd never heard of - as Nina says, people are weird. Sometimes extremely weird. I have no idea where we as a society draw the line in terms of what we can tolerate in public. I think I'd like to put the AGP genie back in the bottle, but I also appreciate gender non-conformity. What to do?
Also, when it comes to this whole "I'm politically homeless" lament we keep hearing... Some people seem to think that if you reject one thing about the left, you have to suddenly believe you were wrong about everything and wholeheartedly embrace the right. No thanks. I don't want a political home. That way lies tribalism, which often doesn't work out well.
A political “home” is helpful in a two party system where voting for one side removes your right to bodily autonomy..and voting for the other side does the same… I think that’s why people are looking for a “Home”. Someone they can vote for and know their basic rights are protected. I can see why people feel “homeless”.
I get it for the ballot box (although I live in Canada). You have to make a choice. I'm just talking in general. I don't "identify" as left or right or anything else.
I must admit that this mother has some serious valid points. If put on the fence, I’m with her. I’ve seen the harm, up close and personal, this trans social contagion has done permanent harm to our children. It’s taken such a heavy toll that my heart breaks for the kids that didn’t make it thru in one piece. And quite frankly, I’m just sick of trying to balance the scales on both sides. I am taking a stand with this mother and hope we can save the next child. It’s gotten way too out of control. Please let these kids grow up without this such social media turmoil that is playing with their heads. This is no joke. I refuse to drink the KoolAid.
Have these people never heard of strategy? Or not airing dirty laundry, or keeping their powder dry, or choosing which hill to die on, or not seeing the forest for the trees?
I'm going to post (briefly) my thoughts about this from a faith-based point of view.
Sex is real, people are weird. Sure. But to me this is actually just the tip of an iceberg, or the toe of an elephant.
I am a practicing Christian, and my church is one of the more "conservative" ones, that is we don't extend the sacrament of marriage to same-sex couples, we have no female clergy (though plenty of super important women), and we are strongly pro-life. In many different ways my church expects its parishioners to live lives that are antithetical to the modern world. So let me take abortion as an example, and see if I can translate it into the gender world.
I believe absolutely that abortion at any stage past conception is a killing. There may be times when this killing is necessary because otherwise the mother will die, but even then it is a tragedy that a human life has been extinguished. The world around me, though (Canada), encourages women to "shout their abortions" and fight for the right of women to have access to them. Though I abhor abortions, I will not fight against their provision. Rather, I will fight to help create a world where a woman doesn't feel she has to abort her baby. This sought-for world is one where women don't feel pressured to have unprotected sex, where families and friends (and parishes) are able to provide support to a woman who is about to have a child, where husbands and partners are held to a high standard and are expected to provide financially for their offspring. That's where I put my efforts.
Let's say that a woman I know and care about had an abortion (it has happened). I will never shun her or shame her. My task, as a Christian, is to love her. That doesn't mean that I accept her choice as a good one, but rather that I stand with her even (maybe especially) when she does the wrong thing. That's what love is, isn't it? We don't abandon our children, even when they wrong us. It's harder with adults, but I believe we are still called to love as much as we are able to, even when we have been wronged.
Let's bring this back to gender. I don't believe that anyone, young or old, should transition and change their body by taking hormones and having surgeries. I also know that some people will do so. My task, as I see it, is to work to create a world where people don't feel that they need to do this to themselves. This means fighting against gender ideology in schools, but doing so in love, not in anger. This also means that gender non-conformity is ok with me. What a person wears, as long as it is not indecent (sexually), is not that important to me. I may feel uncomfortable around a man in a dress, but I am called to love him as much as I am called to love everyone else. If I see a man in a dress walking into a woman's washroom, I will not enter, to protect my safety. But I will not shame him. Instead, I will fight for more single stall washrooms, so that both men in dresses, and trans women, and women have safe private spaces.
Even more broadly, the world I am envisioning has time and space for friendships, and for appreciating and loving nature and music and art; it's a world where families stay together, a world where children and adults are given a good education with lots of opportunities for success and exposure to history and fascinating ideas, a world where people feel like they have a community who loves them. That's where I believe our emphasis should be. It's so much broader than gender!
I don't know if this makes sense as a response to the question you posed, Lisa, or whether it is a response that the writer of the letter would find compelling, but this is the only way I can navigate in this murky mess. I am guided by my faith, which tells me to love my neighbour as myself, without putting any constraints on who this neighbour may be.
As an aside, one thing I hugely appreciate about your work, Lisa, is that you are willing to engage in these conversations. Your part of the post resonated with me very much.
I am not religious and pro-choice but I agree with a lot of what you say. However, I disagree with the part about not shaming a man in a dress and I think the abortion analogy falls apart here. It makes perfect sense that to decrease the number of abortions we shouldn't shame women, we need to help women financially and logistically, show love and support, improve healthcare, etc. However, to help people with paraphilias (such as a man in a dresses) , we shouldn't make it easier for them to act on those by building single stalls and smiling at them lovingly. People who act weird may actually benefit from reality. Laughing at a man in a blue dress may be the best thing for him, hard as it is. Maybe he can stop and think "Hey... people actually don't see me as hot and sexy. Women and children look scared. Maybe I shouldn't do it?" Pretending is not kind, even if it is polite.
MoominMamma, you hit upon something that I do struggle with, which is the place of shame or stigma in society. On the one hand, I know that stigma makes people reluctant to do certain things - for example, it used to be that abortions or even having a child out of wedlock was shameful and so women tried not to get into that sort of a situation. De-stigmatizing behaviours or topics has consequences: many more women now have children out of wedlock and end up as single mothers, and some women are so comfortable with abortion that they treat it as a form of contraception. Stigma, therefore, seems to have some use as a societal tool for enforcing desirable behavior in individuals. But I really can't think of any person I know who seriously changed their behaviour because they were shamed or stigmatized. In fact, I've heard several trans adults wonder if perhaps they would not have not transitioned if they didn't feel so much shame about their desire to cross-dress, or to be included with groups of people of the opposite sex. Shaming people seems to drive the undesirable behaviour underground where it is either expressed in private and hurts the person and their loved ones, or else it festers and eventually bursts out in anger against oneself and against the world. I honestly don't think that laughing at anyone *ever* is helpful or good.
Can we find a way to state that we consider certain choices to be undesirable, while at the same time not shunning or shaming the person who is sticking with that choice?
Maybe if men didn't want to support and care for a child they should just wear a Condon, get a vasectomy or keep their zippers up and maintain abstinence. Why does it always have to fall on the woman to be the only one who is responsible; especially women/girls who are too young, addicted or mentally impaired thus unable to adequately protect themselves from men who are irresponsible or predatory?
I love this response. The abortion analogy makes a lot of sense to me.
Nothing happens in a vacuum. If you feel strongly that something is bad for society and bad for individuals, how do you gently encourage people to make different choices? I agree that the support has to be multi faceted. We cannot just demand that gender affirming care be abolished; we also have to provide people who are tempted down that route with alternative ways of handling whatever distress led them down that path.
I agree with the author 100% and I think there are two separate issues :1. A minor displaying paraphilliac tendencies, privately or publicly. 2 An adult displaying paraphilia behavior publicly
Now, if I recall correctly, Dr Hakeem does think that paraphilias are usually (always?) linked to /caused by traumas. Which means that if your minor child shows signs of them, it's a big reason for concern. Concern for your child, not shaming your child! A parent needs to see if there was abuse , porn exposure, or other trauma since paraphilias don't start in the vacuum. It would be irresponsible for an adult to just say "well, he is an oddball! Live and let live" As for behavior of fully grown adults....
I don't think paraphilias need to be outlawed but most public displays of them should at the very least not be celebrated. Genspect didn't have to kick Phil out but demonstrating approval and being all buddy-buddy with him was uncalled for. Raised eyebrows would be more appropriate. (Yes, shame has its place in a society. We don't approve of a perfectly innocent activity of public nose-picking, do we?). The man said himself that he gets off on wearing women's clothes. Shouldn't we believe him? Is the conference dealing with gender cult a proper place for a person to show off in the outfit that he finds sexually gratifying?
I too find it strange when people decide it's impossible to be politically fluid (as the letter writer seems to imply - she thinks your viewpoints are due to "wanting to appease the liberals", as opposed to being a genuinely rounded out, multi faceted viewpoint). I've seen this same opinion from my most "liberal brainwashed" friend who has rejected my arguments against child gender therapy with the argument that liberals have to draw a firm party line, and "any opposing rhetoric" is inherently harmful because "conservative politics is inherently tied to fascism and neo Nazi groups" (and who is the conspiracy theorist, again?).
I've come to see my own politics as situation dependent and evolving in time: in my local (Canadian) context, I voted conservative for the first time in my life last year during our provincial election. But to me, this isn't a mark of betrayal or political "regression" (as most of my friends initially assumed), it's actually a sign that I'm engaging with my politics more deeply than ever before: by actually considering which issues I care about, what my local reps are saying this specific election cycle, and then voting accordingly.
Someone who votes for the same party no matter what can't possibly be engaging more deeply than a superficial "red team blue team" sentiment. No matter which side of the aisle they are on. I am baffled that more people don't acknowledge this, that we need more diversity of viewpoints and less blind partisanship.
The letter writer sounds very hurt and angry. I sympathize, but I disagree with her conclusion that she can’t support Lisa because they don’t fully agree on where to draw some lines.
I think we’re all evolving our views, we’re all struggling, we’re all shocked and amazed and horrified. I’ve found myself swinging wildly at times from “OMG the right wingers were right, it *is* a slippery slope!” to “No, no, it’s okay if people are weird in private!” Ack, I don’t know!
We can change, we can disagree. Humility--we don’t always know what is best. But we don’t need to attack each other for our differences. We should be fighting the institutions and funders that have been propagating this insanity. Lisa’s views are not the real problem here--and watching her navigate this terrain is why I’m here. I’m sorry the letter writer is in too much pain right now to do that, maybe in time she will.
I agree that the letter is “well written,” but only in terms of command of English. It is, in fact, highly passive-aggressive with a strong emphasis on “aggressive.” I can see no purpose in writing the letter except to be hurtful. The author makes huge and unkind assumptions about your (Lisa’s) motivations for which she has no insight or justification. In short, the letter accomplished nothing except to reveal the author’s mean spiritedness.
The views of the anti-"gender identity" movement around autogynephilia are odd:
- Some believe they have found a new type of "ROGD" boy, who are "brilliant people… intelligence… off the charts" and likely autistic.
- Many look back with fondness, even attraction, to men like David Bowie.
- Many revere apparently "true" transsexuals on Twitter, and embrace "gender non-conforming" men.
It's all autogynephilia, yet use the word "autogynephilia" and there is quite a different reaction, and and insistence that it could never represent the above.
This can be explained by the fact that the phenomenon of autogynephilia hasn't changed, but rather the anti-"gender identity" movement have come to use the word to represent a caricature they have created, which has largely nothing to do with what autogynephilia actually is.
Given that teenage boys are currently being told that what they feel makes them some sort of woman, those who are arguably also contributing to boys transitioning -- to being "mutilated" -- are those in the anti-"gender identity" movement who have taken Blanchard's term "autogynephilia" and made it no longer recognisable to the boys that stand to be helped by Blanchard's research.
As I read recently on Twitter:
"A big part of the problem is that autogynephilic teen males are given the ideology-based options of “you’re a predatory pervert and you’re a danger to women and children” or “you’re innately the opposite sex and you should transition”.
Gender dysphoria remains, as it has been throughout history, clinical insanity. To accept a man pretending to be a woman, regardless of the reason (hurt feelings, etc.), is dishonest. To teach kids to accept lies is to teach them to lie. As dangerous as this would be in an authoritarian society, it is far more dangerous in a democratic society.
No. Insanity means something specific that is greater than just “mental illness”, and something becomes a disorder only when it affects someone’s ability to function…so no. Not potato potahto. You are very bold with your pronouncements despite y not knowing it all
Nahh. “Insanity” would be continuing this argument - doing the sane thing (telling you you’re wrong) and expecting a different result (you educating yourself instead of playing with words).
I really get the letter writer’s viewpoint. Yet I am more and more alarmed by the fact that so many gender critical voices I have followed for years have now become believers that the Covid vaccine is what causes harm, not Covid, and similar conspiracy theories that have now become so mainstream even “liberals” barely oppose them. I’m truly politically homeless. It seems like you can’t have one opinion without signing on to a bunch of other opinions anymore. I’m afraid to say one thing to my conservative friends and another thing to my liberal friends. And people really do reject each other over “saying the wrong thing”. And they gossip about so and so having such and such an opinion CAN YOU BELIEVE IT, etc.
So I’m in my 40’s and have concluded I need to hang out more with my 70-something parents and their friends, who actually seem to accept their friends despite not all of them thinking the same about everything, and they also discuss stuff rather than high fiving each other for being on the right side of history.
My 18 year old “woke” daughter actually expressed horror that I was supportive of Israel. I have friends who would be equally horrified if I expressed sadness over the civilian deaths in Gaza. It’s a crazy time.
I support Lisa not because I agree with every single thing she says but because I agree with her, erm, “broadly” on the gender critical issue. I do also agree with many of the post-liberal letter writer’s points about a slippery slope of “tolerance” that makes it very difficult to clearly condemn harmful sexual fetishes and paraphilias. I am sooooo not “sex positive” anymore. But I respect Lisa’s, and anyone else’s, right to have a different opinion. And you know what? I want to HEAR THE ARGUMENT. I don’t want to hear “THAT’S JUST WRONG, PERIOD”. I want to know why, even if it seems blatantly obvious to the opinion holder.
Lisa is willing to make the arguments for her beliefs and also to change them as she gets new evidence. THIS is why I support her and why I support both broadly liberal and broadly conservative people doing the same. They are increasingly rare.
Thank you. I don't know if I'm paraphilia-supportive. I'm mostly just trying to be practical. And also: what I really want is for GNC people to be unremarkable. Just accept the masculine girl and the feminine boy and not talk about it. But that's a totally different category than AGP, which I guess is why so many people want a giant trans umbrella and don't want to break it down into smaller categories, so they can gain acceptance...
As a trans widow I possibly could be accused of having a bias but what I do know is that many (all?) of us were ill treated and most were lied to by our partner. We have no support and very few people interested to hear or care about our experience. I agree that being GNC should be unremarkable rather than categorised. The giant trans umbrella is not inclusive, it divides everyone into gender categories and oft denies reality. I understand your approach, we do not come to a conclusion by focusing on our beliefs over reality and that is the essence of an unbiased approach.
I believe your opinion about this matter is of much greater weight than that of people who have not had these men in their lives. Even coworkers of trans identified men often have issues with them (often bc they demand to use the female restroom). Denying his fantasy creates a narcissistic injury, and he becomes dangerous and goes on a campaign to damage the business or coworkers.
What knowledge is more salient than direct experience 💕
I had AGP for a long time and when it hit its worse, I read blogs from trans widows to remind myself what was most important to me -- my wife and children.
I would very much like to hear your experience if you wish to tell it.
I would be happy to tell you but not publicly. I would also be interested to hear about your experience.
Do you have a suggestion? Maybe an email (lesser used account is probably best) that can be deleted?
Do you both want to email me and I'll connect you?
We can do a thought experiment.
There was a Canadian high school teacher who wore massive Z-cup prosthetic breasts in class. We conclude it's improper because he's a teacher teaching minors. What if he's a college professor teaching adult students? Would that be acceptable?
What if he wears a dress instead of Z-cup breasts?
What if a man wears a dress in a public, say, in a train or a bus?
I think most women will feel uneasy and move away if possible. It just goes against our survival instinct.
What if a man just walking naked on the street?
Where do we draw the line about what's acceptable and what's not?
I can't think of a logical reason why a man shouldn't be able to wear a dress. I feel ashamed when it makes me squeamish when I do see a man wearing a dress. I think about how society must have felt the same way about women wearing pants before it was commonly accepted. I think that there is a difference between defying sex/gender stereotypes with behavior and dress and an extreme attempt to mimic the opposite sex via surgery and cross sex hormones and insisting that others indulge in their delusion by using cross sex pronouns. A man can wear a dress without giving the appearance of a woman. As soon as someone insists they are the opposite gender (or some other imaginary gender), I am ok with that disqualifying them from working with children. But there is all kinds of gray area. massive Z-cup prosthetic breasts- no thank you around my children and I wouldn't hire you. If people choose to dress outlandishly, I don't think they deserve legal protections from being dismissed from a job. It is reasonable to expect people to conform to a minimal level of societal norms. Some make the argument that it is hypocritical to deny men to freely have breast implants and feminizing surgery when it's fine for women to do it. My question is- why is it ok for women to undergo medically unnecessary cosmetic surgery? Why are we all going with it? It's a good example of the "slippery slope" of adults making (whatever) bodily choices with informed consent being ok.
I just want to go back to the old days, when I could see a man in a dress and move away from his vicinity and no one accused me of being hateful. that my friends now fall over themselves to kiss his ring makes my stomach turn.
I'd say you need to trust your instincts. Why feel ashamed because you cannot play along with a man's fantasy?
Here are my thoughts:
1) Women wearing pants is different from man wearing dresses. I just listened to "A good-humored conversation between Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U32-vZFy7BQ. In the discussion Richard mentioned there's no moral obligation if someone lives alone, like Tom Hanks in the movie Castaway. However, when a person starts interacting with other people, there's moral obligation involved.
Women wearing pants don't pose any threat to man, even if they have short-cut hair. But if I see a man wearing a dress, and he doesn't like like a woman, I'd biased that he's likely having some mental health issue which would cause me to feel a potential threat. If a mean wears a dress and looks like a woman, then I'd feel even more dangerous. This is the reason why we need to have sex-based spaces. The minimal level, I think, is for a man to dress in a way to be respectful of women and girls, so that they can tell he's a sane man.
2) Why is it ok for women to undergo medically unnecessary cosmetic surgery? Cosmetic surgery has its risks, but women taking it will become more attractive, or they believe so. There's little irreversible harm. However it's completely a different game when men want to take it. First it's irreversible damage to men. Even adult man can be vulnerable and fall for the trans ideology and believe they're women. This is why we need to have safeguarding and first do no harm.
There is certainlyirreversible harm in breast implants and many other cosmetic procedures. It is like letting dr Frankenstein experiment on your body. I knew several men who wear skirts and dresses for comfort sake-that doesn’t make me uncomfortable. It’s the creepy vibe that an actual agp gives off that is not publicly acceptable-the dress is almost neutral.
Agreed there is irreversible harm in cosmetic surgery- especially when they go wrong but even if surgery "goes" right. I know many women who are struggling with major health issues because of breast implants from years ago. Scottish men wear/wore kilts and that has caught on in the states to a limited extent (my husband doesn't wear one on a regular basis but does when we perform Celtic music or attend his Scottish society events. It's not distressing to see a man in a kilt which is basically a skirt.
Being naked in public is against the law. A man going to school with giant false breasts is a huge distraction, embarrassing and insulting to women and most schools would never allow such a bizarre disruption and flaunting of the dress code. No woman would be allowed such disrespectful impunity like wearing a bikini or a huge dildo to work or school. As for breast implants for women; they are very dangerous to one's health as they cause auto immune disease and other problems which is well documented. Maybe they should be banned, but docs make millions on them as well as all kinds of needless, injurious plastic surgery. Some men wear kilts which are like skirts. No problem. But trans people usually go so far as to try to impersonate women, which is committing identity fraud, identity theft, colonization and parasitism of women's sexual identity. This also falsifys reality and endangers women in multiple ways.
I conclude it’s inappropriate because the female students in the class do not deserve to have to be around a literally clown like display of ridiculous womanface. It’s degrading to them to be becoming real women while this man walks around in bimbo cosplay.
well articulated. Though I would make the argument also that we women could do all us women a favor by stopping the silly cosplay and ridiculous clown/womanface that is so common. Nobody needs to wear caked on makeup to be their "authentic selves" and if this were less common, it would be much more difficult for men to pose as women as well as alleviate mental health issues that come with attempting to attain unrealistic and unnatural beauty standards.
I've been in this "strange bedfellows" place for the past few years, politically speaking. As in, by opening my eyes to the reality of the gender wars, I've found myself nodding along with people who also, as you say, think COVID vaccines cause more harm than COVID itself. But what an interesting point you raise.
For myself, I actually have shifted multiple (formerly hyper partisan) opinions. I have noticed that the more I hear cult-like nonsense in blind support of "trans human rights", the more distrusting I am of simplistic narratives, and therefore I am more open to a diversity of viewpoints on other issues, too. COVID is a great example because while I am not an extremist (eg. It's complete nonsense to believe things like "the vaccines contain 5G chips"), I think we also have to acknowledge that vaccine injury is a real phenomenon. And that rolling out an inherently experimental new technology (mRNA vaccine) to an entire population is something worth being wary of, and we should be critical of voices that try to assure us there will be no unexpected long term effects (how could we possibly know at this stage?). And that people truly should have a choice whether to engage with experimental new technology, not be forced (either legally or socially) to accept novel new vaccine technology. I didn't have these beliefs before I realized I was so, so wrong about the trans stuff. It made me think: what else could I be wrong about? What other voices and opinions have I discarded without giving them real consideration?
My two cents on what is probably a side issue but -- there was so much about the vaccines that was just wrong.
I was just talking to someone about it a week ago and one observation I made -- since when do they encourage pregnant women to take ANYTHING, let alone a novel, new vaccine?
Here's a vaccine that is new, with a new method never used before -- and even though pregnant woman cannot ride a roller coaster, drink alcohol, or smoke a cigarette -- we're going to recommend she take this novel vaccine?
To protect against an illness that 99% of people get over without issue?
Makes no sense.
Thanks, I relate to this very much. Once I stopped outsourcing my views about gender (and for me, views about race at the same time) then everything became worth asking questions about. Vaccine injuries are a great example. It reminded me of the detransitioners, and how shut down their voices have been in the mainstream press. It was destabilizing for quite some time, but now I feel more comfortable, if also much more humble. As you say, what else could I be wrong about? Probably lots. But I'm not into throwing the baby out with the bathwater either and just finding another tribe with mirror opposite beliefs about different evil people. That seems to be one pathway that some disenchanted progressives take. I'm not throwing feminism out, feminism as I understand it anyway. Not becoming a MAGA Republican, though I have become less judgey about them and more curious. It has also felt good to examine, be critical of, but ultimately embrace my own not very conventional life because it's who I am. I'm OK with the freak flag, after all.
Yes! Absolutely. I love what you said about becoming "less judgey, more curious" about MAGA Republicans (and presumably other folks you may have dismissed in the past). It's so easy to fall into the trap of dehumanizing other people.
And it's especially icky when progressives fall into that trap, because there's usually a sanctimonious "well I'm on the side of human rights" justification to their dehumanizing speech. If you believe, for instance, that everyone who voted Trump is literally a vile and brainless monster, then ... what hope do you have for ever functioning in a society with multiple view points? How can you say compassion is a driving value if you believe a majority of your peers are either stupid or evil?
Yes, some people die from vaccines - have a fatal reaction or are chronically impaired, but.....millions more die or are impaired from the lack of being vaccinated. A million plus people in the USA died from Covid. Maybe a few dozen died or were disabled by the vaccine. So it's a toss of the dice: risk dying from covid or risk dying from the vaccine.
I agree with checking your untested beliefs. But I think the answer is to seek more reliable information. With mRNA vaccine as with any medical treatment you have an idea of what the risks could be. With early vaccines the risk was that you were actually introducing the disease to health person. That seemed really dangerous and early on it was. Because people don't have scientific literacy (and because science has become so complex) it's hard to understand why mRNA vaccines are inherently less dangerous than regular vaccines (because they don't introduce the pathogen like regular vaccines do, they just mimic the proteins in the pathogen to trigger the immune response). Which is not to say there isn't any risk but it's possible to make a solid general statement that they are less risky than traditional vaccines. The problem is people don't go beyond their opinions and anxieties to seek info: "something new sounds like a big risk. i don't like it." rather than taking the next step to understand the way the vaccines work. Similarly a position can resonate {"protect the trans kids") and you just accept that gender identity exists and that trans kids are suicidal etc and most folks don't actually check the research literature nor are they able to understand the results in scientific jargon.
Yes, broadly speaking I agree with your point about needing to seek new information.
Not to go too deep into the rabbit hole here, but a lack of education/understanding about what mRNA technology entails is not the only reason to be skeptical of literally cutting edge technology. It's come to light recently that the spike protein itself can be harmful in myriad ways (the spike protein is what the mRNA vaccine produces). If you haven't heard of this before then here is one peer reviewed paper you could read to get a bit of an idea:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10452662/
... and, colloquially, I've now met several people who have been injured by vaccines, and have encountered many many more suffering from the ill understood mechanisms of long COVID.
I only know so much about this because my husband was rendered functionally disabled due to long COVID, and we've been learning a lot about it (including keeping up on the research). I was extremely pro vaccine, got my two shots in 2020/2021, including while breastfeeding my child, and only now am I realizing there were a lot more problems with the vaccine than we originally anticipated. So to be honest I feel really incensed on this specific issue because I feel lied to (by the CDC, by the scientific community, by ignorant policy makers, etc.) because they were simply not honest (or maybe they were just optimistic / unrealistic) about the potential for totally unknown adverse long term effects...
Not the point of this thread but felt it was worth sharing. Being skeptical of the COVID vaccine, and being critical of coercive politics around vaccine compliance, is NOT only the domain of crazy conspiracy nuts. Anyone who has had to directly live with the consequences is suffering in part due to the mass delusion of the majority. (Much like the people injured by the totally "life saving" practices of gender affirming care.)
Did your husband get the vaccine before he got covid?
Yes
exactly. when you step out of the stream, you suddenly notice all the things you blindly agreed with.
if the institutions got this so wrong, what else are they butchering?
I am (was) a longtime liberal and progressive. I'm only speaking for myself (and echoing something Lisa recently wrote) but finding out just how wrong the mainstream media and government and academia sources - the places I was taught to go to to do "fact checking" - were about what's happening with young people and gender, just how much misinformation they were publishing and the extents they were going to silence and smear people telling other true parts of a complex issue - completely destabilized my trust in journalism and institutions. If they were not telling the truth about this, what other topics - topics I don't have the time or ability to research - are getting the "gender treatment" in how they are being reported on and made into policy? I fully recognize the risk for getting pulled into conspiracy thinking or being misled in a different direction and I try to guard against that, but really, how do you do that? I don't believe covid vaccines have microchips or were worse than covid. But I think there are a lot of legitimate questions about how they should be used now and that we have not been given good information about them. Does that make me someone falling for conspiracy theories, someone traumatized by my experiences with the gender lies, or a more healthy and balanced skeptic? I fully admit I don't know, but I'm also not sure who is in a place to judge and draw the lines.
I’ve been processing the excellent points you and the other people replying to my comment have made. I have had the same experience of the door cracking open to distrust institutions I believed were completely trustworthy. The way I’ve been able to (hopefully) guard against falling into conspiracy theories is to find some people (like Eric Topol on Covid) who really do seem to be not only an expert in the subject matter of whatever issue is at hand, but balanced and fair in the way they discuss the issue: letting the evidence lead, painstakingly explaining their thought process, and acknowledging their errors when they happen. So I don’t trust WHO or CDC to tell me a wholly factual public health narrative but I have come to trust Dr. Topol. I similarly don’t reflexively trust the Democratic Party or the Fed in their narratives about the economy, but I think I usually get an honest and mostly reliable take from Paul Krugman. The problem is obviously that it takes time and effort to sort the honest experts from the “expert” shills, and one can become the other over time. It’s exhausting. I don’t have any answers but I do feel like I have to keep trying and not use shortcuts/heuristics to assess truth, whenever possible. Unfortunately our brains are wired to use heuristics to assess truth…
When you find yourself so sure that people who think the COVID vaccine causes injury are conspiracy theorists, please remember how it feels (or might feel if you haven't personally experienced it) to be on the receiving end of being cast as the crazy who doesn't go along with the mainstream narrative- the mainstream narrative that says that it's perfectly natural for anyone to choose their gender, that there are infinite genders to choose from, that biological sex isn't real or at least doesn't matter, that men should be allowed to play in women's sports as long as they "feel" like a woman, that schools should change students pronouns and names upon student request and should not "out" them to their parents but should deceive the parents, that ROGD doesn't exist. Have you been afraid to speak up ever with gender critical views? Have you ever been afraid to voice concerns about sharing preferred pronouns for fear of losing your job?
Now just imagine that there might be a world where people who are vaccine critical are having an experience that parallels their experience related to gender issues. "The science is settled" is the narrative that is used for both issues. But when you aren't allowed to question something, that is the time to be the most curious.
Believe me I know how hard it is to accept that we are being fed information that is not true and that once you realize this, you have a hard time knowing what to believe or trust and that is very unsettling.
Seconded!!!
The letter writer is correct in that no paraphilias are "harmless," or good.
We can't eliminate harm, or evil, from humanity. There is no social mechanism to effectively treat all paraphilias, or mental illnesses, or even physical illnesses. Humans gonna human, and a lot of human-ing is bad.
How are we going to live with our imperfect, or worse, brothers and sisters? We draw a line somewhere. Reality dictates we must be practical. How much of the population do we want to criminalize? To institutionalize or jail? Or merely disenfranchise? What overall good comes from more or less?
Some tolerate too much, others not enough.
I have drawn my own lines in the Gender Wars: Sex is real.
But also: People are weird.
These are the tenets of the TERF-Tranny Alliance, and I'm sticking to 'em. https://www.heterodorx.com/terftrannyalliance/
That pretty much covers it: Sex is real. People are weird!
I love the questions you've asked. And, yes, we must be practical. Living in a place with a lot of deinstitutionalized mentally ill people, some of them quite dangerous, makes me think sometimes institutionalization is important—but not if you're gonna put the male rapists in the women's institution! So maybe "sex is real, people are weird," should be the guiding principal beneath most policies...
The people who wanted to deinstitutionalize mental illness had the "best of intentions." I met many of them when I worked in government in Washington State. They were responding to excesses of harmful restraint in mental hospitals, so there really were abuses that needed to be addressed--but because of their self-blinding about how dangerous and harmful some mentally ill people can be, they came up with the (terribly) wrong solution. These policies were opposed by many families who had mentally ill family members and KNEW, but nobody cared. Didn't fit the narrative. And those people who believe we should "abolish prisons" also have the "best of intentions." These turn out to be disastrous policies because they deny Nina's basic point that humans are messed up and sometimes dangerous, and that we need policies that protect society, while allowing as much liberty as possible. We need to find balance, a process which will always be uncomfortable. We'll have different ideas about that balance and have to work it out. Questions that we cannot answer, as you put it. Yeah, in truth these days I feel uncomfortable with a man in a dress working at the co-op because of (um possibly incorrect!) assumptions I make about him, but it's just a dress and I wouldn't support any policy that bans him from wearing that dress to work, even if I as a customer may feel uncomfortable. That's on the liberty side. On the protective side, not ok for him to work in a g-strong. Progressivism, like many other ideologies, denies this basic and fundamental truth that people are messed up and that there is no utopia past or future which will ever once and for all fix this aspect of being in the human family. This is central to Nina's position, which I agree with. There won't be perfect fixes. But I have come to be critical of such thinking that prioritizes promoting the world people think SHOULD exist. Are they really the "best of intentions" or is it the ego of the reformers?
I agree that those who are mentally ill and commit crimes need to be in a restricted environment. Deinstutionalizing and shutting psychiatric hospitals without providing adequate community housing and support has led to much suffering and disgraceful homeless - and in some cases avoidable criminality. But some with serious mental illness have lived a much more dignified and rewarding life in supportive housing in the community. The promise of deinstitutionalization was betrayed - a lie - as the promise of community care was not provided.
Yes, that's an great point--only part of the vision was realized, closing down the institutions. But the community care piece never was funded as promised.
The letter writer is incorrect: the researchers who define and use the word "paraphilia" do not see it as meaning something that is inherently harmful. [1]
Where a paraphilia is harmful or distressing to oneself or others, the term used is "paraphilic disorder". Blanchard writes about this reason to distinguish between paraphilia and paraphilic disorder [2]. To paraphrase, it was to avoid the absurdity where a cross-dresser could not be considered a transvestite, if they were a happy cross-dresser. Indeed, there have been many times in history, such as in the glam-metal era, when transvestitic expression found itself as part of a desirable counter-culture.
There are inherently harmful paraphilias, however autogynephilia is not one of them, "Some paraphilic behaviors are illegal or potentially harmful to other people; other paraphilic behaviors are both legal and harmless. Autogynephilia is one of the latter type of paraphilias.” [3]
[1] “A paraphilia [“any intense and persistent sexual interest other than sexual interest in genital stimulation or preparatory fondling with phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting human partners”] is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for having a paraphilic disorder, and a paraphilia by itself does not necessarily justify or require clinical intervention” American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.) pp. 685-6.
[2] "DSM to Distinguish Paraphilias From Paraphilic Disorders" https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.pn.2013.5a19
[3] Blanchard, R. Ph. D. “Partial versus complete autogynephilia and gender dysphoria”. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 19, 301–307 1993.
Why would one automatically subscribe to any definition endorsed by the DSM!? Let them label "hysterics," "nymphomaniacs," "refrigerator mothers" and all the other misogynistic terms that have destroyed lives, but who would unquestionably go along with such often malicious B.S.?
AND things that are not paraphilias can certainly be harmful to relationships. AGP wouldn't be a problem in a relationship where the wife is also turned on by her husband in drag. Adultery (desire for novelty in partners) is not considered a mental illness or condition but it does damage relationships. Taken to an extreme it does become abnormal in the form of sex addiction. And where that line gets drawn between normal and excessive will be based on social ideas of normality.
The DSM changes over time and like a dictionary, changes it's definitions and adds words. Illness (physical and mental) also develops and is described within culture. In the west we often chest/heart attack symptoms under stress where in Asia they exhibit other symptoms when under stress, because heart disease is less prevalent. We say "oh my god you nearly gave me a heart attack:"--that's not a saying in Asia. Same over time: Homosexuality isn't considered a mental illness anymore as when the DSM started in 1952 --it reflected the culture mores of that time. Today, there is a lot of acceptance of non-conventional things that (seem to) not hurt anyone. Getting aroused by feet is a paraphilia and not my thing but it seems pretty harmless in the scheme of things. I would say that's a harmless paraphilia.
Thank you Orlando! So many people have lots of opinions but are completely ignorant on this topic.
Criminalization and institutionalization would be only appropriate where an actual crime was committed. Otherwise, we have to make our peace with the fact that humans are indeed weird as fuck. Social disapprobation has a role, though, if we care about the right of people not to get swept up into others’ paraphilias without consent. I draw a bright line between private and public spaces. A kink being enacted in public makes me a participant as a spectator, and that’s a violation of consent. I do not consent to be a part of random people’s kinks.
However, there are circumstances where a paraphilia can be practiced coercively in private spaces as well. There are too many stories from trans widows that confirm this, sadly. So many of them report being pressured to engage in sex acts that repulse them in order to help their partner “feel like a woman.” And given that AGP inherently craves the validation of others, it is more likely to lead to coercing others’ participation than, say, a foot fetish.
You don't have to criminalize paraphilas, but you can ostracize and marginalize them so they don't become normalized and mainstreamed to infect others. What are they talking about: "Love is love" They are talking about sex, which can be something quite different from love; as in rape for instance. In some cases sex isn't love - far from it- it's sado-masochism or bondage and discipline, which is extreme hate, akin to torture. While in many cases sex is an affectionate, loving bonding between two individuals this is hardly what trans people usually mean, practice with their duplicitous posturing which actually mocks sincere, honest sexual relationships.
My own view is that we need to stick to three core principles.
(1) Acceptance that sex is binary, cannot be changed, and that males and females are different.
(2) Commit to using evidence-based methods to help those with gender dysphoria.
(3) Accept that children are too young to consent to certain acts and treatments without consent of their parents or guardian.
I guess the fourth point would be
(4) People are weird and there is a line, somewhat difficult to pin down but in the neighborhood of "if you are male you have to respect women's and children's need for safety."
Yes but I think is implicit in (1) since I think it is indisputable that males have a propensity to physically/sexually harm others, and females are vulnerable. That is the justification for single sex facilities. It is of course true that they are a threat to males as well, including transwomen. My suggested solution to that is pragmatic steps to limit harm to everyone, including transgender people.
And *be seen* to be doing the right thing. It’s not enough these days to actually do the right thing, you have to be conscious of the fact that you have to be seen to be doing the right thing. Hence why every parish I know has strategically frosted glass doors to their offices and confessionals so that they can meet privately as needed but still be surveilled by anyone passing by.
I think we should stick to discussing the medical intervention of young people and vulnerable adults with life altering and dangerous treatments that do not meet medical standards given their risk/benefit/alternatives/unknown outcome if do nothing.
We all have different philosophies about the rest, many of which are in conflict. We can spend lots of time trying to reach common ground on those.
I see a lot of people viewing this issue as a stepping stone to agreement or change about other things, larger issues, world views.
What is the medical evidence behind benefit?
For MTF on estrogen they're not seeing it. For ftm testosterone is an antidepressant and yet results are small and seem short lived. Bodies are being harmed. Mastectomies for girls who have no capability to understand breastfeeding or motherhood or their future interest in it. Castration of young men who have been told falsely it's the only way forward for them.
We agree on these being problems. We can disagree on other things which can distract.
Amen!!
I’m always a little baffled that people think it’s somehow “pro AGP” to recognize that there’s really no way to police how a man dresses without crossing over into really regressive dress codes. In discussing AGP-gate at Genspect, Stella OMalley asked how exactly it would have been possible to ban Phil Illy from the conference. It seems to me it’s a little bit like the arguments in favour of free speech- I have to put up with things I don’t like and that are potentially harmful in order to protect my own rights.
Totally agree.
I thought the whole AGPgate thing was pretty silly to be honest. Who shows up at a conference all about gender non conformity (and gender issues more broadly) and gets offended at seeing a man in a dress? Seriously?
They were offended because he’s a gross person and was touting his creepy book at a conference full of people who have been harmed by people like him. I don’t know what gendpect could have done, but people annoyance is not unfounded
Nonsense. A man in a dress is a public nuisance, against which laws exist. A man in a woman’s locker room is an invasion of privacy. Laws exist there, too.
"A man in a dress is a public nuisance, against which laws exist. "
Maybe you don't live in the USA?
This is exactly the kind of statement that derails the movement, makes it smaller and ineffective.
Tell us, then, where you or if you draw a line?
“Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to tell
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”
“Yes, Sir.”
“It’s ‘Ma’am.’”
“Geez, Frank, last time I was in this courtroom it was ‘Sir.’”
“Well, it’s ‘Francine’ now. And it’s ‘Ma’am.’”
“OK, Frank.”
Judge: “the witness will refer to the bailiff with her preferred gender.”
“No, your Honor, I won’t.”
“The I shall fine you for being in contempt of court.”
“You’re gonna reverse-bribe me to lie?”
“You will refer to the bailiff as she prefers.”
“OK. I just swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. What else do you want me to lie about?”
I draw the line at changing pronouns, demanding others accept them as something they are not, and of course, any threatening behavior (including entering women’s spaces)
- Yes I live in the USA.
- Yes a man in a dress is a nuisance.
- More of this kinda reality-based statement would force transidiocy into the bin where it belongs
- Less of this kind of statement (ie reality) is why we’re having this idiocy to begin with.
- Well, that and the rise of the empathy voter more worried about “that poor....” whatever today than about safe streets, secure borders, good schools and a government based on reality: eg feminism and 19A.
I think the objection was to, “against which laws exist.” No, they don’t.
FTA: There are two main categories of nuisance: public and private. A public nuisance is an act that unreasonably interferes with the health, safety, morals, and/or property rights of the general public.
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/public-nuisance-lawyers.html
Men and women should be free to wear clothing that is comfortable for them, a man in a dress is not necessarily a nuisance (though an agp in a dress might be) and I certainly would not want my own clothing policed, as that is regressive-not a direction I want to go in. I’d rather these men be socially sanctioned vs legal sanctions. As for entering our women’s spaces-that is certainly a violation and shows the man is dangerous (willing to violate women’s boundaries
Nope. If society cares about its future it must set appropriate examples for its youth. A man in a dress is not an appropriate example of any mature society. Empathy is not a good enough reason to screw-up future generations. There is a difference between “liberty” and “license;” the empathy voters have forgotten this or never learned it.
We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one! 70 years ago you could be saying that no woman should be seen in pants or they would screw up further generations. Your current position is equally absurd. Morality does not reside in clothing but in the person wearing it.
As to dresses v pants, it’s all part of the feminism destroying Western Civ, beginning with suffrage and the empathy vote and here we are: “Oh that poor....” illegal alien, incarcerated thug, murderer who had a bad childhood, murdered who had post-partum, failed male swimmer, crappy teacher, illiterate “graduate,”... an excuse for every violation of society. The foundation of every social pathology in the West today? Women’s suffrage. Pandora & Eve are women for a reason. For millennia, Western Civ rose without suffrage. For a century we have been reversing that rise. Why? 19A, feminism, and now its inherent loss of fertility. Government is about force. Nothing in evolution prepared women for the use of force; it’s why there never has been a successful matriarchy. For what has evolution prepared women? To do whatever it takes to pass on their genes, which is why any search of “mean girls” gets pages of responses. If you’re even the least bit sentient & aware, you realize that we can have a safe, secure, educated and prosperous society ... or ... women’s suffrage.
Also, you’ve no idea whether there’s been a successful matriarchy, because matriarchy doesn’t violently expand itself in every directly, ruining and wasting precious human life in the way that your precious powerful government does. The success of a matriarchy would be measured by different scale than the success of western civilization. Anyhow, I’m going to bow out of this conversation, as I don’t find it entertaining to explain basic human decency and the right of women to vote to someone who isn’t intelligent enough to Intuit that on their own
Ps, you have no clue about eve, as I’m sure you got your info from the English translation of the Bible which is woefully inaccurate in carrying the deep esoteric meaning of the text of the Bible.
Yeah you aren’t going to get me to agree with you that feminism - literally the movement that gave me legal protection of my basic rights as a human being…destroyed the west 😂 truly hope you do not have daughters or that they are mentally oriented against your rather ignorant, too cocksure opinions! There are of course elements of feminism that were destructive-but feminism itself is nothing but the push for women to be treated as full humans and if you aren’t behind that, you are a sad discontented specimen indeed
Morality resides in the society accepting or not behaviors of which it approves and which will lead to a positive future.
Sure! And I think it would be immoral to restrict what clothing we wear. So like I said-we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. Merry Solstice!
I am in no way suggesting that men can actually be women or that they should be in women’s spaces. I’m not sure I understand your comment. Are you saying that it should be against the law for a man to wear a dress?
What Alex Scipio saying quite plainly is that women never should have gotten the vote; that by gaining human rights women have ruined society and political life. I don't like seeing men in womanface any more than I like seeing people in blackface or Asianface or any other appropriation and mockery of any other group. Imagine having to sit down with a man in blackface at work?! Galling. But I don't think there's anything we can do about men parading around in dresses and womenface except to shun or ostracize them the way we've done with blackface, asianface and minstrels, but people can wear what they want short of exposing themselves for sexual gratification, which is against the law.
One of the major issues being missed by every trans discussion I have seen is this:
The human brain completely rewires itself during and immediately after puberty. Puberty blockers block this process. By allowing blockers, not only are we sterilizing children, we are terminating normal brain development.
If your desired future is the zombification of America, you’re supporting the cause that will get us there. But if you support a future of progress and brains well used, everyone supporting the trans cult is supporting the opposition to that future.
I’m saying we have - and once enforced - laws against violation of the common good.
It’s true. But as a free society we should not enforce laws on harmless behavior (dressing out of the norm), but on harmful behavior. It takes a light touch if you want to maintain your freedoms
How is a man dressing as & pretending to be a woman not behavior harmful to pre-pubescent children still figuring out the world, human interactions, and their role?
There are reasons humans rejected these behaviors from our beginnings until 5 minutes ago, reasons - doubtless - having their roots in evolution.
And how is it harmless railing against women gaining human rights and getting the vote? You sound just as dangerous to the welfare of women as the trans Taliban.
I think Lisa’s greatest success is demonstrated here, in the thoughtful and thought-provoking discussion that has arisen in this and so many other posts. Over time, I have had disagreements, sometimes strong ones, with points of view expressed here, whether by Lisa or others—and I am sure the same can be said of me by others here.
But over time, there are a few things that have guided me in a choice to stay engaged, though perhaps not read or listen to everything:
First, Lisa is dedicated, thoughtful, and sincere. Every journalist should aspire to what she aspires to here. She is on an earnest quest for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, to the best it can be ascertained, and recognizes this is a moving target.
Second, I have learned an enormous amount from participants here, and this has helped me better formulate my thoughts and express them to others who are not yet aware and/or are resistant to recognizing the grave harms to women, children, and families as the result of gender identity activism. Better yet, I have even made a friend with whom I chat on the phone every now and then. We have lively discussions, grounded in our personal experience, that teach us each to enlarge our thinking (and also a safe place to carp about those in our own circles of friends who just don’t get—or refuse even to talk about—these issues 😎).
Third, as I listen, read, learn, and speak with others, I have been able to formulate views that I have confidence are science-based and guide how I think, while at the same time striving to be open to learning something new that requires me to readjust those views. I do have some very strong views at this point, but I also keep in mind the mantra “what if you are wrong?”
Here are a handful of my current views, just to give an idea:
1. DEI should be abolished every place it lurks.
2. K-12 schools need a complete overhaul, including point 1. No child should be taught any of the tenets of gender identity as if they were fact. I would go further and say that tenets of gender identity should not be taught at all in the lower grades. These tenets should only be taught in high school, if at all, and as a low priority, when young people are at a developmental stage to engage productively with abstract concepts, and, even then these tenets must be taught as a highly contested theory with no foundation in scientific fact.
3. In my own advocacy, I center on the impact of gender identity ideology on the harms to women, children, and families. I am careful about who I accept as allies and will not promote people whose larger agendas I see as problematic on issues of critical importance to me, even if they may occasionally state something on these issues with which I might agree. My view is that there are plenty of excellent allies who don’t pose those problems.
4. Allied with 3, I am not interested in the issues related to paraphiliac individuals, except to the extent that these individuals present a public safety risk. In those cases, public safety must come first, and normalizing the mental health condition is not appropriate. Otherwise, this is out of my pay grade and a matter for the mental health profession. Folks with these conditions are entitled, as we all are, to receive the mental health care they need with competence and compassion and not guided by an activist agenda.
Well, as usual, I have gone on too long, so I’ll leave it there!
Accepting that paraphilias exist is not the same thing as "supporting" them. I watched a great recent interview with Az Hakeem, in support of his new book, and he talks about some paraphilias I'd never heard of - as Nina says, people are weird. Sometimes extremely weird. I have no idea where we as a society draw the line in terms of what we can tolerate in public. I think I'd like to put the AGP genie back in the bottle, but I also appreciate gender non-conformity. What to do?
Also, when it comes to this whole "I'm politically homeless" lament we keep hearing... Some people seem to think that if you reject one thing about the left, you have to suddenly believe you were wrong about everything and wholeheartedly embrace the right. No thanks. I don't want a political home. That way lies tribalism, which often doesn't work out well.
A political “home” is helpful in a two party system where voting for one side removes your right to bodily autonomy..and voting for the other side does the same… I think that’s why people are looking for a “Home”. Someone they can vote for and know their basic rights are protected. I can see why people feel “homeless”.
I get it for the ballot box (although I live in Canada). You have to make a choice. I'm just talking in general. I don't "identify" as left or right or anything else.
Neither do I , but politics is about what you will vote for or against , so a political home is a functional necessity
I must admit that this mother has some serious valid points. If put on the fence, I’m with her. I’ve seen the harm, up close and personal, this trans social contagion has done permanent harm to our children. It’s taken such a heavy toll that my heart breaks for the kids that didn’t make it thru in one piece. And quite frankly, I’m just sick of trying to balance the scales on both sides. I am taking a stand with this mother and hope we can save the next child. It’s gotten way too out of control. Please let these kids grow up without this such social media turmoil that is playing with their heads. This is no joke. I refuse to drink the KoolAid.
Have these people never heard of strategy? Or not airing dirty laundry, or keeping their powder dry, or choosing which hill to die on, or not seeing the forest for the trees?
I'm going to post (briefly) my thoughts about this from a faith-based point of view.
Sex is real, people are weird. Sure. But to me this is actually just the tip of an iceberg, or the toe of an elephant.
I am a practicing Christian, and my church is one of the more "conservative" ones, that is we don't extend the sacrament of marriage to same-sex couples, we have no female clergy (though plenty of super important women), and we are strongly pro-life. In many different ways my church expects its parishioners to live lives that are antithetical to the modern world. So let me take abortion as an example, and see if I can translate it into the gender world.
I believe absolutely that abortion at any stage past conception is a killing. There may be times when this killing is necessary because otherwise the mother will die, but even then it is a tragedy that a human life has been extinguished. The world around me, though (Canada), encourages women to "shout their abortions" and fight for the right of women to have access to them. Though I abhor abortions, I will not fight against their provision. Rather, I will fight to help create a world where a woman doesn't feel she has to abort her baby. This sought-for world is one where women don't feel pressured to have unprotected sex, where families and friends (and parishes) are able to provide support to a woman who is about to have a child, where husbands and partners are held to a high standard and are expected to provide financially for their offspring. That's where I put my efforts.
Let's say that a woman I know and care about had an abortion (it has happened). I will never shun her or shame her. My task, as a Christian, is to love her. That doesn't mean that I accept her choice as a good one, but rather that I stand with her even (maybe especially) when she does the wrong thing. That's what love is, isn't it? We don't abandon our children, even when they wrong us. It's harder with adults, but I believe we are still called to love as much as we are able to, even when we have been wronged.
Let's bring this back to gender. I don't believe that anyone, young or old, should transition and change their body by taking hormones and having surgeries. I also know that some people will do so. My task, as I see it, is to work to create a world where people don't feel that they need to do this to themselves. This means fighting against gender ideology in schools, but doing so in love, not in anger. This also means that gender non-conformity is ok with me. What a person wears, as long as it is not indecent (sexually), is not that important to me. I may feel uncomfortable around a man in a dress, but I am called to love him as much as I am called to love everyone else. If I see a man in a dress walking into a woman's washroom, I will not enter, to protect my safety. But I will not shame him. Instead, I will fight for more single stall washrooms, so that both men in dresses, and trans women, and women have safe private spaces.
Even more broadly, the world I am envisioning has time and space for friendships, and for appreciating and loving nature and music and art; it's a world where families stay together, a world where children and adults are given a good education with lots of opportunities for success and exposure to history and fascinating ideas, a world where people feel like they have a community who loves them. That's where I believe our emphasis should be. It's so much broader than gender!
I don't know if this makes sense as a response to the question you posed, Lisa, or whether it is a response that the writer of the letter would find compelling, but this is the only way I can navigate in this murky mess. I am guided by my faith, which tells me to love my neighbour as myself, without putting any constraints on who this neighbour may be.
As an aside, one thing I hugely appreciate about your work, Lisa, is that you are willing to engage in these conversations. Your part of the post resonated with me very much.
I am not religious and pro-choice but I agree with a lot of what you say. However, I disagree with the part about not shaming a man in a dress and I think the abortion analogy falls apart here. It makes perfect sense that to decrease the number of abortions we shouldn't shame women, we need to help women financially and logistically, show love and support, improve healthcare, etc. However, to help people with paraphilias (such as a man in a dresses) , we shouldn't make it easier for them to act on those by building single stalls and smiling at them lovingly. People who act weird may actually benefit from reality. Laughing at a man in a blue dress may be the best thing for him, hard as it is. Maybe he can stop and think "Hey... people actually don't see me as hot and sexy. Women and children look scared. Maybe I shouldn't do it?" Pretending is not kind, even if it is polite.
MoominMamma, you hit upon something that I do struggle with, which is the place of shame or stigma in society. On the one hand, I know that stigma makes people reluctant to do certain things - for example, it used to be that abortions or even having a child out of wedlock was shameful and so women tried not to get into that sort of a situation. De-stigmatizing behaviours or topics has consequences: many more women now have children out of wedlock and end up as single mothers, and some women are so comfortable with abortion that they treat it as a form of contraception. Stigma, therefore, seems to have some use as a societal tool for enforcing desirable behavior in individuals. But I really can't think of any person I know who seriously changed their behaviour because they were shamed or stigmatized. In fact, I've heard several trans adults wonder if perhaps they would not have not transitioned if they didn't feel so much shame about their desire to cross-dress, or to be included with groups of people of the opposite sex. Shaming people seems to drive the undesirable behaviour underground where it is either expressed in private and hurts the person and their loved ones, or else it festers and eventually bursts out in anger against oneself and against the world. I honestly don't think that laughing at anyone *ever* is helpful or good.
Can we find a way to state that we consider certain choices to be undesirable, while at the same time not shunning or shaming the person who is sticking with that choice?
You are right, it would be better to show that the behavior is undesirable without shaming. I don't know how.
Maybe if men didn't want to support and care for a child they should just wear a Condon, get a vasectomy or keep their zippers up and maintain abstinence. Why does it always have to fall on the woman to be the only one who is responsible; especially women/girls who are too young, addicted or mentally impaired thus unable to adequately protect themselves from men who are irresponsible or predatory?
Yes, Betsy, that's definitely a part of what I meant when I said "[a world] where women don't feel pressured to have unprotected sex".
I love this response. The abortion analogy makes a lot of sense to me.
Nothing happens in a vacuum. If you feel strongly that something is bad for society and bad for individuals, how do you gently encourage people to make different choices? I agree that the support has to be multi faceted. We cannot just demand that gender affirming care be abolished; we also have to provide people who are tempted down that route with alternative ways of handling whatever distress led them down that path.
I agree with the author 100% and I think there are two separate issues :1. A minor displaying paraphilliac tendencies, privately or publicly. 2 An adult displaying paraphilia behavior publicly
Now, if I recall correctly, Dr Hakeem does think that paraphilias are usually (always?) linked to /caused by traumas. Which means that if your minor child shows signs of them, it's a big reason for concern. Concern for your child, not shaming your child! A parent needs to see if there was abuse , porn exposure, or other trauma since paraphilias don't start in the vacuum. It would be irresponsible for an adult to just say "well, he is an oddball! Live and let live" As for behavior of fully grown adults....
I don't think paraphilias need to be outlawed but most public displays of them should at the very least not be celebrated. Genspect didn't have to kick Phil out but demonstrating approval and being all buddy-buddy with him was uncalled for. Raised eyebrows would be more appropriate. (Yes, shame has its place in a society. We don't approve of a perfectly innocent activity of public nose-picking, do we?). The man said himself that he gets off on wearing women's clothes. Shouldn't we believe him? Is the conference dealing with gender cult a proper place for a person to show off in the outfit that he finds sexually gratifying?
Well said!
I too find it strange when people decide it's impossible to be politically fluid (as the letter writer seems to imply - she thinks your viewpoints are due to "wanting to appease the liberals", as opposed to being a genuinely rounded out, multi faceted viewpoint). I've seen this same opinion from my most "liberal brainwashed" friend who has rejected my arguments against child gender therapy with the argument that liberals have to draw a firm party line, and "any opposing rhetoric" is inherently harmful because "conservative politics is inherently tied to fascism and neo Nazi groups" (and who is the conspiracy theorist, again?).
I've come to see my own politics as situation dependent and evolving in time: in my local (Canadian) context, I voted conservative for the first time in my life last year during our provincial election. But to me, this isn't a mark of betrayal or political "regression" (as most of my friends initially assumed), it's actually a sign that I'm engaging with my politics more deeply than ever before: by actually considering which issues I care about, what my local reps are saying this specific election cycle, and then voting accordingly.
Someone who votes for the same party no matter what can't possibly be engaging more deeply than a superficial "red team blue team" sentiment. No matter which side of the aisle they are on. I am baffled that more people don't acknowledge this, that we need more diversity of viewpoints and less blind partisanship.
The letter writer sounds very hurt and angry. I sympathize, but I disagree with her conclusion that she can’t support Lisa because they don’t fully agree on where to draw some lines.
I think we’re all evolving our views, we’re all struggling, we’re all shocked and amazed and horrified. I’ve found myself swinging wildly at times from “OMG the right wingers were right, it *is* a slippery slope!” to “No, no, it’s okay if people are weird in private!” Ack, I don’t know!
We can change, we can disagree. Humility--we don’t always know what is best. But we don’t need to attack each other for our differences. We should be fighting the institutions and funders that have been propagating this insanity. Lisa’s views are not the real problem here--and watching her navigate this terrain is why I’m here. I’m sorry the letter writer is in too much pain right now to do that, maybe in time she will.
I agree that the letter is “well written,” but only in terms of command of English. It is, in fact, highly passive-aggressive with a strong emphasis on “aggressive.” I can see no purpose in writing the letter except to be hurtful. The author makes huge and unkind assumptions about your (Lisa’s) motivations for which she has no insight or justification. In short, the letter accomplished nothing except to reveal the author’s mean spiritedness.
Perhaps the writer was trying to bring Lisa to her side. This person is obviously hurt
The views of the anti-"gender identity" movement around autogynephilia are odd:
- Some believe they have found a new type of "ROGD" boy, who are "brilliant people… intelligence… off the charts" and likely autistic.
- Many look back with fondness, even attraction, to men like David Bowie.
- Many revere apparently "true" transsexuals on Twitter, and embrace "gender non-conforming" men.
It's all autogynephilia, yet use the word "autogynephilia" and there is quite a different reaction, and and insistence that it could never represent the above.
This can be explained by the fact that the phenomenon of autogynephilia hasn't changed, but rather the anti-"gender identity" movement have come to use the word to represent a caricature they have created, which has largely nothing to do with what autogynephilia actually is.
Given that teenage boys are currently being told that what they feel makes them some sort of woman, those who are arguably also contributing to boys transitioning -- to being "mutilated" -- are those in the anti-"gender identity" movement who have taken Blanchard's term "autogynephilia" and made it no longer recognisable to the boys that stand to be helped by Blanchard's research.
As I read recently on Twitter:
"A big part of the problem is that autogynephilic teen males are given the ideology-based options of “you’re a predatory pervert and you’re a danger to women and children” or “you’re innately the opposite sex and you should transition”.
Which option do you think they’ll choose?"
Amen.
Gender dysphoria remains, as it has been throughout history, clinical insanity. To accept a man pretending to be a woman, regardless of the reason (hurt feelings, etc.), is dishonest. To teach kids to accept lies is to teach them to lie. As dangerous as this would be in an authoritarian society, it is far more dangerous in a democratic society.
No excuse exists for accepting or telling a lie.
I wouldn’t call it insanity (neither would a psychiatrist), but it is certainly mental illness.
It’s defined as a “mental disorder.” Potayto potahto
No. Insanity means something specific that is greater than just “mental illness”, and something becomes a disorder only when it affects someone’s ability to function…so no. Not potato potahto. You are very bold with your pronouncements despite y not knowing it all
Nahh. “Insanity” would be continuing this argument - doing the sane thing (telling you you’re wrong) and expecting a different result (you educating yourself instead of playing with words).