Great essay! Wish I could have been at that conference! I was recently in a heated conversation with a recent college graduate (a family member). She is liberal (her Ivy League education took care of that, plus she's in the creative world), but probably largely thanks to my many conversations with her about this topic, she does admit she agrees with me about the injustice of male bodies competing against female bodies. However, she believes that not using a person's desired pronouns makes one a "hateful bigot" and she launches into impassioned statements about how much prejudice and hate the transgender community have faced. I fully agree with your point that we need to speak up, to protect girls and women, and I believe one of the most effective ways to do so is in one-on-one conversations with people who know us to the extent that it may be harder for them to immediately judge us to be bigoted a-holes. Because I think that's one of the reasons more of us don't speak up. We don't want to be misinterpreted, and considered awful people - in part because that's a painful rejection, in part because that makes us less effective. Your statement, "I understand that some adults change their bodies to feel more comfortable. As long as they know the truth, and don’t expect me to subvert what I know to be true, I’m fine with that" - resonated as I had brought this up in my discussion with this young woman. I'm a therapist, and I said, "If I know you are female, but if out of 'respect' I call you a 'he,' how is that any different from my agreeing with an anorexic client that she needs to lose weight, or with someone whose grip on reality is tenuous that they are indeed being spied on by the government? And if you agree that that is problematic and dishonest, as a therapist - is it possible that it may also be problematic and dishonest of me as a human outside the therapy office?"
I think if we could create and communicate a Venn diagram with the following, maybe that's how we build more bridges: 1) compassionate, tolerant person 2) person who is grounded in scientific reality 3) policies that protect the vulnerable and that are fair and just. Because both can be true - I can be compassionate and tolerant, while being grounded in reality and believe in biology, etc - and we can create policies that protect the vulnerable while not doing so at the cost of hard-earned rights and need for safety.
The most terrible thing many trans identified people are facing right now, in my mind, are inappropriate medical interventions, rather than support to understand themselves (and deal with their struggles without assuming they'll be fixed by medical means).
Yanno, I've been diagnosed with a cataract, the most common surgical procedure to fix on the planet. And I can't just waltz into a hospital and get it done. Apparently I have to go through a bunch of tests first to determine what sort of cataract it is, how far along it is (not very, I can still drive), and what my options are. Apparently one that is NOT is, "I want this out now, let's just do it!" I mean, yes, I'd like to have it done faster than it's getting done but I'm very glad I can't. I can't argue, "I identify with having better vision in that eye and if I don't get it, like, yesterday, I'm going to commit suicide!"
And this is *for the most common surgical procedure globally*! So something a feck of a lot more potentially damaging and irreversible like sex change should take more than, say, a minute or two of consultation and then, "Well my five year old knows what's best for him." This is why this trans crap is mostly a liberal problem. Liberals have always had a hard time saying no to their children, and suffer from the delusion that kids know what's best for them.
I'd be curious to know what this young relative would think after learning about the abuse of trans widows, women who divorced suddenly crossdressing men. Now that drag = trans = gender fluid, I have no qualms about naming them all as crossdressers. In the data I have so far from 47 trans widows on my survey, 20 Questions to Ask a Trans Widow, the reality of physical and sexual assault by these husbands who flip out if you don't let them have the "mother" category, as well as the financial profligacy, hardly recommend this behavior. Out of 47 of us so far, 18 experienced sexual assaults separate from sex role play coercion, with 4 rapes reported in my survey, but not to law enforcement. Half of us initially experienced single motherhood below the poverty line, as he refuses to pay child support. The situation is the worst for my younger trans widow sisters, as their husbands were addicted to violent porn and acted it out. The 2 incidents reported to police were the choking.
As I mentioned previously, using fraudulent pronouns only furthers the delusion that men can be some kind of woman and then it gets harder for a woman to say: 'She can't use the women's restroom' and for that not to sound weird-it is crazy-making. We should not affirm any person as something they are not by using deceptive pronouns--that is not kind or respectful of women's boundaries. Please read the article 'Pronouns Are Rohypnol' and take The Stroop Test. https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/
Great article, thanks. I habitually convert transmogrified pronouns into real-sex terms anyway, as it really messes with my brain if I don't: now I understand better some other reasons why -- beyond my irritation with writers & publishers & issuers of NUJ guidelines for untruthfulness. Also did the Stroop test and it took me FOUR times as long to read out the wrong-colour words: several times just stopped in confusion as I couldn't remember what I was supposed to be doing.
If someone tells you that he is Napoleon are you required to agree with him? If you fail to endorse his delusions are you being Napoleonphobic? It it exactly the same situation if a man tells you that he is a woman. No one can change their biological sex. The mentally ill are entitled to freely live their lives with sympathy and care but not forced acceptance of their fantasies.
I think the most important thing to remember in having conversations is to stop trying to make all the points and get people to understand every issue at once. Changing a deeply held belief is hard, even painful, and isn’t going to happen on one conversation. Pushing too hard makes people dig in more.
In my experiences in a very liberal area, everyone, even those posting and saying all the familiar activist talking points, feels uncomfortable and concerned about what’s going on with teen girls. They actually seem relieved to have another liberal bring it up and give them the opportunity to say something doesn’t feel right about what’s happening with teen girls. But don’t use that to start pushing every other issue - sports, bathrooms, prisons - all at once. People need a lot of time thinking and talking about why the issue that seems so obviously concerning to them - the spike in teen girls - is a completely taboo topic their trusted media won’t report on accurately. Stay with that.
Keep in mind that most liberals who are privately concerned about teen girls still believe in the “born in the wrong body” child who was obviously gender nonconforming since the moment they could walk and talk and has been consistent, insistent, and persistent. They assume those children are carefully monitored and assessed and have to transition because they will never grow out of it. Be prepared to share the studies showing ~80% of children will outgrow dysphoria during puberty. This was a big shock for a friend I shared this with who thought blockers were necessary for young dysphoric children. But here’s the key and the hard part: don’t jump into your opinions or the issues around the 20% who *don’t* outgrow it. Those are later conversations and potential places for allowing disagreement. One step at a time, and people don’t have to agree on everything. Trying to push perfect agreement creates even less agreement and recognition of common ground.
I once heard someone say that a person’s beliefs on this topic are based on the experiences of the happiest trans person that they personally know. I think that is key to remember and to respect and have compassion for in conversations.
Finally, although the sports issue, especially Lia Thomas, often peaks people, sports does NOT seem to work for people who are deeply dug into their beliefs. We have found they will acknowledge issues of safety and fairness, but because it’s an area of cognitive dissonance they have already recognized in themselves and feel uncomfortable with not being able to reconcile. it’s the topic they are most resistant to discussing.
A study citing the number of children who outgrow dysphoria to share if needed:
Evidence from the 10 available prospective follow-up studies from childhood to adolescence (reviewed in the study by Ristori and Steensma28) indicates that for ~80% of children who meet the criteria for GDC, the GD recedes with puberty. Instead, many of these adolescents will identify as non-heterosexual
Puzzle Therapy, your suggestion to go slow and not overwhelm is so good! I'm encountering this as I speak to my kids' schools. There is so much to say, and it all feels so urgent when you see the damage that this ideology does to children, that it's hard for me to keep myself contained. But then I remember that it took me years to discover everything I have discovered, and it took time to internalize the information as well. Just knowing facts is different from the visceral feeling one gets when listening to detransitioners, for example.
And people have to come to these conclusions themselves, or else the next passionate trans-advocate that comes along will easily sway them back with emotions and false/exaggerated facts. It's only when you really get it that you are able to spot the holes in the trans-activists' arguments from a mile away.
"Finally, although the sports issue, especially Lia Thomas, often peaks people, sports does NOT seem to work for people who are deeply dug into their beliefs. We have found they will acknowledge issues of safety and fairness, but because it’s an area of cognitive dissonance they have already recognized in themselves and feel uncomfortable with not being able to reconcile. it’s the topic they are most resistant to discussing."
A bastard of a good point and the best explanation I've seen so far as to why my otherwise intelligent, retired lawyer, feminist, progressive friend got SO defensive last month when I started talking about Lia Thomas. Boy oh boy did she not want to talk about that...I'm guessing she'd rather preserve her woke house of gender identity cards....
Lisa, I'm going to push back a bit on the Venn diagram with the "religioninsts" in it. Personally, I find that in my circles (of mostly Orthodox and Catholic Christians), there is no insistence on traditional gender/sex roles at all. There is, however, a very clear understanding that men and women are different. In our belief, the man - like Christ - is called to serve the woman, who is like the Church, and is called to love and support the man. The male-female dynamic is therefore not of subjugation or dominance, but of mutual love that may be demonstrated in different ways. And of course every couple's specific dynamic is different.
Of course, "religioninsts" may mean "those who are religious in a specific way that promotes and/or requires adherence to traditional sex roles", but it's a very narrow definition, then. It's just a bit of a pet peeve of mine that left-leaning people tend to assume that all those who are religious fit a particular mold.
But I wholeheartedly agree with your call to speak out - trying to do so whenever I can!
Thank you. It's true that this could reflect a small portion of believers. But I think it explains the overlap in feminists and some waves of the religious right. I am an atheist but I often enjoy talking to people who have faith in God, and had two amazing interviews with people who found faith during the gender battle that I'm putting in the book. I wish I had religion, but at least I have heterodoxy!
We have the Beatles. I do have quiet talks or listening or trying to be silent, sitting in my garden and asking for wisdom from my grandmother. I don't like to talk about it bc maybe it's my own brain telling me what she says but it gives me comfort. And the serenity prayer works for non-believers too. I believe in something more powerful. Love I believe in love. 💔
Thank you for this comment, I had a similar reaction to the Venn diagram. My circles also include many Orthodox and Christian people, as well as both progressive and conservative thinkers. I know plenty of exceptions to the Venn generalizations, to the point where I’m not sure its helpful. Built on stereotypes a bit. I know many conservatives who are not religious; many religious who are not conservative. Also, “Reject” versus “accept” the legitimacy of gender roles sounds too vague, dichotomous and an awful lot like the activists simplistic characterization of nuanced beliefs. Parents I coach in this space need to help their kids stop thinking in stereotypical categories. We all need to drop making assumptions based on superficial characteristics and focus on individuals unique and diverse personalities and interests.
I am not sure how what you describe can be called anything other than "traditional gender roles." Simply because they accept that women can learn to read and get a job doesn't mean that gender roles are not being enacted.
Emma, I think "traditional gender roles" mean something like the following: men - breadwinners, active, in charge, dominant. Women - homemakers, accepting, followers, caregivers. These are not bad things, and there probably are lots of religious families where this hierarchy or structure is actively encouraged. This is not the case in what I'm describing as the stance of the Christians I know. It's far more nuanced and rich than "women can learn to read and get a job". It's a matter of accepting that we all utilize our talents for the benefit of all, within our families and our communities, whatever these talents may be (not depending on whether they are "feminine" or "masculine"). And also a knowledge that men and women are not all just "humans" with bits stuck on in different places. Not something to get into in depth on a comments thread, but nevertheless real and beautiful. :)
I know plenty of strong, intelligent and successful women, religious and non-religious, who chose “traditional gender roles”. I get pretty nervous when anyone suggests they are ignorant or backward, by virtue of their life choices. They aren’t hurting anyone and there is good evidence their kids do better in life than kids in other family configurations.
Individuals make choices that include gender roles, based upon their personal beliefs and values. If a woman decides to go to law school but then starts a family and decides to focus on her family, she is choosing a gender role consistent with her value of focusing on her family over her career.
A "gender role" is a sociological concept. You can choose to believe in them, in which case I strongly disagree with your beliefs. That is completely separate from your life choices.
“the role or behavior considered to be appropriate to a particular gender as determined by prevailing cultural norms.” one of several definitions I find. aren’t behaviors based upon personal choices?
The Nazi defeat was only achieved through the cooperation of the Western Allies and the Soviets. We, too, can go back to our cold wars after we defeat this modern totalitarian evil.
Yes, especially if we take the analogy another step further : trans activists terminated the pact with feminists/liberals like Nazi did with the USSR in 1941.
Excellent! Thank you, Lisa, for attending ICONS and for sharing this with us. I also see the bi-partisanship of the conference as greatly inspiring - and as the way out of this madness.
I'm wondering if there's a fourth circle in the Venn diagram at the top that represents "Third Wave Feminists", who share with gender-critical feminists a "rejection of traditional gender roles" and who are willing to "reject the reality of biological sex" in support, "intersectionally", of what they see as trans rights. The "gender affirming care = reproductive rights" proponents. In my view, they are the ones who need to be nudged to "peak". I have written a few "break up letters" to women's organizations that I can share, and encourage others to write in to those organizations that you may have supported in the past.
Sure. Two things to note: Lisa is collecting some great examples above, on a tab called "Letters to Change Minds". Lots of very thoughtful letters there. And, not a lot of people write back to me. Some do, some even invite me for coffee to hear me out. But some shout at me (like Adam Schiff's office) and when I asked the UCSF Gender Clinic (in an email) to advise parents of the weak evidence and to assure kids that they are not "born in the wrong body", I was reported for harassment. So, I offer this as a tool with limited effectiveness, but with, possibly, some "self care" type benefits :)
Dear ________,
Thank you for the important work that [Name of Organization] does. I have supported your organization in the past, and have been excited to keep up with your work over the years.
I noticed in your recent fundraising email [or on your website, or your social media, or at last evening’s gathering], [Name of Organization]’s support for “gender affirming care” [or the statement “gender affirming care = reproductive rights]. This statement deeply concerns me.
Your work is important and messaging matters; so I am writing to seek clarification. What does [Name of Organization] believe it is defending, when it defends “gender affirming care”? Or equate “gender affirming care” with “reproductive rights”? Are you in support of "pediatric gender affirming care" that subjects teens to life-long medication, harmful side effects, sexual disfunction and infertility? If so, to what end?
Currently, many European countries (France, England, Finland, Sweden, and Norway) have reviewed the research into “gender affirming care”, found it lacking, and rolled back or restricted such “care”. Many resources* are available now to better understand what is happening outside the US and to compare it to what is happening here: (Hannah Barnes' book about the Tavistock in England; Jamie Reed's testimony about Wash U's clinic; Leor Sapir's comparison of US and European policies; the work of Genspect; the work of Lisa Selin Davis). [use links, which haven't transferred into this comment]. Each resource exposes that the evidence for gender affirming care is weak and the risk of harm is great.
I am writing to ask [Name of Organization] to communicate clearly - and as a matter of urgency - to our children that no one is "born in the wrong body" and no gender non-conforming teen needs to medicalize, as a solution to their distress. Would you consider a message that uplifts our young people as they are?
I hope that you will consider exploring these resources and revisiting your position. I am writing to you, in your role as Development Director, because, for me, where [Name of Organization] stands on these issues matters for my charitable decision-making going forward. I look forward to your clarifications.
Thanks, Suzanne. This is helpful and your advice is appreciated. Everytime I step into this, I do some deep breathing. I don't find that tab "letters to change minds", which I also contributed to.
It's "piqued", not "peaked". The root of "pique" ironically is the French "piquer", meaning "to prick". Don't be pricked. Isn't that what this is all about, really?
1. Stick out your elbows to make room for yourself. You have to tell your truth, no matter how uncomfortable it is. The more you do this, the easier it becomes and the more oxygen there is for others who share your views. They are between 25-35% of the population. Not a small number.
2. Saying or pretending to believe that men are women is a lie. One lie leads to another. Eventually you cannot tell the truth. You cannot effect change if you do not tell the truth. Stop lying. A little bit of lying leads to big lies. Stop it.
3. Your feelings and perceptions are not false. Stop pretending they are. Other people's feelings and perceptions are NOT more important than yours. Stop it.
4. The Milgram Shock Experiment found that 65% of participants were willing to shock supposed victims TO DEATH. This is why so many people are parroting these lies. Don't participate in the lying. Your feelings actually have a biological, objective reality. You can feel it in your nervous system. Honor your body. Listen to your gut. It's directly connected to your BRAIN.
5. The further left you go, the closer you come to sharing a bed with the right-wing. Political views go in a circle--not a straight line. We are all related, biologically and intellectually. Honor that.
6. Remember that the chant that ended the Vietnam War was HELL NO, WE WON'T GO. Own it.
7. Transgender women are mentally ill men. Duh. Do not allow your natural empathy (a wonderful thing women have more than men) to be weaponized against you.
8. Watch Lierre Keith's YouTube on Non-Violent Direct Action at:
9. Your rights matter. Your feelings matter. Your perceptions matter. They all have an objective reality in your body. Stay in your body. Your FEMALE body. We have abilities men lack.
10. I'm not using your fucking pronouns. And you're not using my fucking bathroom. Get over it. FYI, your taste in clothing sucks.
11. Why are all these young women being diagnosed as autistic? They don't appear to me to be and I've worked with autistic youth. What is going on here? Why is the problem in the kids and not in the society? WHERE ARE THE GROWN-UPS? WHERE ARE THE FEMINIST TEACHERS AND SHRINKS?
12. Nothing wrong with conservative Christians as long as they don't put their religion on me. Some of them have some pretty riveting things to say. Looking at a problem from multiple points of view is necessary. They are necessary allies. Welcome them. Their religion is theirs; your spiritual practice is yours. It's not that complicated.
In this case, peaking is about when people wake up from wokeness. It's not about piquing one's interest. See the other explanation! But in general I do appreciate copyediting notes!
I thought at first (a year or two ago) that "peaked" must be a mistake, a misspelling of "piqued" until I realised it wasn't: it has a different meaning. People are "peaked" (in this context) when they reach some critical threshold that tips them into a new state of awareness about the absurdity and outrage of gender cult pretensions, arrogance, bullying or whatever. Whereas "piqued" is just to have one's interest stimulated a bit.
Maybe that will become a fourth meaning. But there are currently three acknowledged meanings, none of which make sense in this usage re trans ideology:
peaked
pēkt, pē′kĭd
adjective
1 Ending in a peak; pointed.
2. Pointed; ending in a point.
3.Sickly; not robust.
Pique isn't only about being interested. It can be aggravated or aroused by something, whatever. I think this is the proper spelling in this sense. Maybe it needs a stronger word. But I'm a writer and I care about language so I made a comment about it. Sorry. It's beside the point.
My additional comment on the subject referred to this statement. I personally was not piqued or peaked. I was made aware of what was going--I generally view the American obsession with sex as a twisted form of its Puritanism and fear of death so I just ignore these arguments and identities and I do not consider them human sexualities; rather, they are an expression of WESTERN culture. You won't find any words referring to them in most languages, unless they have taken the English terms and modified them a little. It's a form of cultural colonialism, in my opinion. I think it was probably Jennifer Bilek and Genevieve Gluck who discussed issues that I have (decades ago) some personal experience with--i.e. I knew someone who was part of the Man-Boy Love ludicrousness, and pedophilia is an issue in many large cities, especially one I used to live in when my son was little (and is the reason we initially left, frankly) and it's mostly done by men, and the ridiculousness of allowing male convicts to serve their time in women's prisons is a bit much, especially since half of them committed violent crimes against women. That's commonsense. Then we go off the deep end into eunuchism and nullification. I knew someone with autogynephilia in college--he did a wonderful drag performance that did NOT mock women and was not inappropriately sexualized and he did consider his fetish a form of psychological dysfunction. He was a terrific performer. Most drag these days is just Puritanism turned on its head. Anyway, I wasn't peaked or piqued. I was outraged when I learned how extreme the ideology has become and who is pushing it on the society. Do what you want with your life. But do not intrude on my right to live mine in peace. And do not threaten my kid's sanity and physical safety.
So I wasn't peaked or piqued. I was educated, maybe, or had previous memories triggered. I call them memories and not traumas. And my kid is a middle-aged man now (who thinks I'm a transphobe!). Most of my women friends are not following this and try to be "kind". They are not thinking very deeply about it. Some who consider me a transphobe and "hateful" are only listening to the trans propaganda and do not believe these stories about transwomen raping women in women's prisons as true, probably because they appear primarily in the conservative press since the mainstream and leftist press censor these stories and won't print them. They do not believe autogynephilia is connected to the trans movement (if they even know what it is). They do not believe men want to rape boys and call it a consenting relationship. They do not believe men get their rocks off on thinking about or being castrated, or that some groom little boys in order to castrate them. Nullification is over the top--I don't think very many people know what that is.
I'm still not clear what is meant by "woke". If it means "politically correct", maybe. I dislike the term. Everyone else is asleep? I assumed it was a right-wing term but apparently not.
I do not believe in putting young children in daycare so their parents can continue their careers. This is what happens. We now have several generations who have been raised by their peers and when children do not have significant bonds to multi-generations they are vulnerable. Maybe it's retro, but I think if you are going to have a kid, the mother needs to be home with that kid 24/7 for the first two years. Fathers are not mothers any more than men are women. The mother-child bond in infancy is undervalued in this society. It affects everything later on.
If you look at TERFy discourse on Twitter -- where I repeatedly encountered the term "peaked" -- the "fourth meaning" that you think it will "maybe" have has been common usage for years. (Though it might be less common elsewhere.) I had to infer its meaning from contextual usage, where substituting "piqued" didn't fit. (Spurred to further interest, mildly put out or annoyed, are not equivalent to being overwhelmed and outraged: with a further suggestion of sudden realisation or awakening to the truth of a situation.) As a native English speaker & writer I learnt French, Latin & German starting 70 years ago & have always been interested in usage and etymology.
Well, this is cultural miscommunication. I am also a native English speaker but was born and raised in the M.E. where most people speak 3-5 language by the age of 5. But I do not do Twitter. I've hated it since Diane Rehm started communicating with people with "tweets". You can't really communicate well in a tweet. They're too short. So I have no idea what is happening on Twitter beyond silly videos friends send me. And I don't consider Twitter a serious reference. I do follow TERFs. I am one, and wear the term proudly. But I've never heard this word usage before. It's not made it into the dictionary yet, even though Oxford says a woman is an individual who identifies as a woman. So it's not part of the language yet, in my opinion.
You might not like or use Twitter (now "X") yourself, but it remains a platform where politicians and journalists, authors, broadcasters etc -- and politically minded people generally -- exchange news and views. The character limit on Tweets is overcome by using a series of them.
The discourse on trans issues is particularly thriving and sometimes virulent: though the hate and bigotry comes from transactivists, not those they project it onto.
New terms or usage frequently enter language from more specialised origins, as "peaked" appears to. I wouldn't use the term because I dislike it. But I remember exactly the situation to which it could be applied. I read an article in the local newspaper about a female Professor of Philosophy (Kathleen Stock) at a local university (of Sussex): she was being hounded out of her job by baying mobs of students who called her a "hater" and a "transphobe" for the crime of belief in the reality of biological sex. (Hardly surprising, for a lesbian.) But she was unsupported either by teaching colleagues or by university administration (and eventually resigned her job).
I was shocked by this all-round callous treatment, and looked her up on Twitter: said something to which I got immediate accusations (by transactivist vigilantes) of being a "TERF". Had to Google for the meaning of this: to find it was "Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist". Well yes: been a feminist all my life and a radical feminist since the 1970s. I also objected to males in female-only spaces. And if this was how transactivists behaved, it was shocking and shameful.
Put this on Twitter & several women replied to say "this happened to me too". They'd all been called "TERFs", had to find out what it meant -- and agreed.
Okay. Now I REALLY don't understand the meaning of "peaked" as you are using it. Please give me a definition that refers to your last statement.
Did you watch Kathleen Stock's discussion at Oxford? A female student GLUED herself to the podium so the beginning of the event was delayed while they unstuck the fool. I thought Oxford was a GOOD school. I am so glad I am not a university student today. I think I would probably drop out and just get my education at the library.
Excellent piece read in UK. Thanks. Yes, in bed with strange bedfellows and being effective. Necessary and character building for all of us!
I just wish I could finally get through to my adult kids. They persist in believing I'm a terfy dinosaur....although the women's sports issues do surprisingly cut through - when other parts of the issue remain 'be kind'.. They want to be seen as diversity-aware in a culture where your opinions are on show. But calling kind forward-looking people as bigots really isn't kind is it!
Michelle below. Your views are spot on in my opinion. Your clients get congruence!
I'm thinking about watching Trumbo with my kids…again. The McCarthyism parallels are difficult to ignore. I don't know if I've ever lived during a time when free speech is dangerous and asking serious questions leaves one to ridicule, and expressing educated opinions about women’s rights and harm to kids is a radical view that even saying something reasonable out loud could one’s job at risk, ostracization from friends and family, AND parental rights are all taboo. Bc the wrong person with an agenda could use my words as a weapon.
” Welch was stunned. As he struggled to maintain his composure, he looked at McCarthy and declared, “Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness.” It was then McCarthy’s turn to be stunned into silence, as Welch asked, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”
The audience of citizens and newspaper and television reporters burst into wild applause. Just a week later, the hearings into the Army came to a close.
What do your kids think about masked male transactivists swathed in black who attack women for trying to listen to other women speak? And fracture the skull of a 71 year old woman? Who wear T shirts and carry placards saying KILL TERFS? Or PUNCH A TERF TODAY? Who refuse to let anyone speak who doesn't agree with them? Who send death threats to anyone who dares speak up? Who get people fired from their jobs for saying that biological sex is real?
Great article. You actually inspired me to contact my school's Title IX office about the erasure of "sex" in campus non-discrimination statements. Many refer only to gender identity and/or expression. I've been meaning to speak up for a while now.
"LGB is about same-sex attraction. T, on the other hand, has generally been about either being attracted to oneself as the opposite sex, …"
I've never understood why this basic difference isn't more controversial. How did T get tacked on without any debate?
One answer: virtue signaling trumps solidarity. I see this as an example of the class struggle over values. It's important for elites to claim moral superiority over the unwashed by throwing their weight behind the beleaguered trans community because that's their merit badge of distinction. In their minds it sets them apart from the little people with their backward ideas about gender.
David, related to your point, I think Lisa’s title, about “coalition building,” is important, and to be distinguished from the empty virtue signaling you describe. As an “L,” I am very happy, and indeed I welcome, the opportunity to work in coalition with non-Ls to achieve mutually desired goals, but this should not come at the expense of understanding that those working together may also have separable interests and concerns, sometimes even in opposition to one another. This discussion between Julie Bindel and Doug Murray is excellent on one aspect of that: https://youtu.be/YysgbnBohhc. On the empty virtue signaling front, I am beyond frustrated at the blithe, ubiquitous assumption that LGBTQ+alphabet soup is in any way a coherent “community.” As I have pointed out more than once to electeds who use this term, this is like saying everyone who is not white belongs to a single “community.” It does all of us with legitimate, discrete interests and concerns a huge disservice to lump everyone together. Indeed, it’s an insult.
HIV became a non-issue and the LGBTQ non-profits needed money because there was no longer all that funding for HIV/AIDS. A couple billionaires offered money if they would take on the trans issue because they are invested in these medical procedures, hormones, puberty blockers AND FUTURE TRANSHUMANIST PROCEDURES AND PROJECTS. Not only LGBTQ. They colonized the friggin' ACLU. This is how "T" got added in. Now there's so much money involved for so many institutions, it's a huge snowball. But snow balls do melt. They do not like to talk about autogynephilia which is a sexual fetish. They want to talk about being born in the wrong body which is supposedly a biological problem. "Gender Queer" quotes a Ph.D. named Patricia Churchland who posits exactly how this happens during the development of the foetus in utero. Only problem is if you research Patricia Churchland's background, she doesn't have a degree in Biology. Her degrees are in Philosophy. There's no there there. I don't have a degree in Biology either so do not know if what she posits is valid or not but I won't take her word for it. I do know that chromosomally male (or female) is for keeps, no matter what.
This is a huge distraction while the WEF prepares for the big change to CBDCs to hide the fact that the US dollar (and all currencies riding its coattails) is going to crash.
How do you deprogram jihadis? We underestimate the depth of the ideological online radicalization that's happened in the English speaking world since the 2020 cataclysm of George Floyd's murder, the pandemic and the summer of protest riots. Antifa and Trans Rights Activists have seized the moment and are making headway fast while we're still trying to be reasonable. Yes, try to sway the hearts and minds of friends and family, but also force our leaders to prosecute and lock up violent and threatening TRAs. This is a terrorist threat and it's time to treat it as such.
Well, maybe we should have a screening of The Unredacted (formerly Jihad Rehab) and talk about it. I choose to try to deprogram with evidence and stories of those getting hurt, but the trans activist tactics are basically a kind of emotional abuse (more on that in a post soon) of threats. Not sure if what I'm doing can stand up to that. Also, providing off-ramps for Dems and others who've invested—ways to be supportive of gender diversity but not of gender identity ideology. Which is why trans-inclusivity in the resistance is important in the grand scheme of things, but of course lots of different groups can define their boundaries however they need to.
You have an army of parents, parents, feminists, and journalists supporting you. Don't forget that. We are on fire. Only 10% of the iceberg is exposed. A tsunami of truth is coming and when European docs school American docs…that’s a first. I can't believe how much has changed from November 2021 to now. I could only find 2 articles on this topic:
Lisa Littman’s ROGD study
Abigail Shrier’s book
WaPo Op-Ed by Drs Edward—Leeper & Anderson
Jesse Singal’s 2018 piece in The Atlantic
60 Minutes episode about detransioners (I had never heard the word detransioner.
Then I found the Gender a Wider Lense and listened to every episode.
When I saw Dr. Edwards-Leeper on the front page of the NYTS the same day I had my first parent appointment with her…I started believing in God, well I already did bc of the Beatles and Prince. I thought things are changing I have hope.
This is such a great point: “providing off-ramps for Dems and others who've invested—ways to be supportive of gender diversity but not of gender identity ideology.”
What you're doing is amazing! Yes, it takes a variety of tactics to counter this insidious tangle of ideologies. We need more coverage of, and outrage over, the violent tactics of the TRAs including the de-voicing of women through career destruction, threats of violence and shaming. Tucker Carlson was astute when he joked during his interview with Posie Parker: "You've got to hand it to the left with this trans stuff, they figured out how to shut women up!" Not yet they haven't! Thanks for your brave voice inspiring us all!
I've spent the last four years discovering how to deliver any information about the impact of trans ideology on society to my community. It was interesting to discover what arguments people will use to advance their trans supportive agenda. I made it a daily practice to debunk their arguments so many memes were they deploying. I found out what was effective and what got me unfriended or shut up and those conversations became the basis of my book "The Unexpected Penis: Conversations on the Gender Trail".
So my first rule is to start where they are. I agree that information has to be delivered in very small packets because it will all be an experience of cognitive dissonance and you have to let each experience of dissonance sink in. In my case the first dissonance is to my advantage because I'm a lesbian talking to them from my 35 years of being in the San Francisco gay community and I was the first publicly open lesbian in Palo Alto in 1992 where I lived at the time. So people are willing to listen to me except for my LGB peers who are horrified at the extent of my betrayal so I lost pretty much all of them.
So I paid a price, but it was worth it to become part of this coalition you describe above. As a biracial person and immigrant informed by three cultures I am nurtured by these cross cultural experiences and now I have new friends who are smarter, braver and more socially adept at negotiating our current society than those I lost.
I just saw your interview w/ Bejamin Boyce and found it to be fascinating. I too have been quite frustrated by people who seem so daft about the 'trans' issue and can't seem to understand the damage it is doing to women's rights and to young people and esp. to lesbians and gays.
Many in the LGB community never bought into the 'trans' nonsense or have come to their senses about it. But some get sucked into the 'gender vortex' and I want to say to them 'Can't you see that you are sawing off the limb you sitting on?' And as far as losing friends over this issue I realized that afterall I just lost the friends that needed losing and found others on the way through this madness. Here is the link to your interesting interview. https://amandakovattana.substack.com/p/breaking-the-narrative-on-gender
“…feminism—which I shall define today as a person concerned with women’s rights (what’s your definition?)”
This is one of those wide-ranging, inclusive definitions that a lot of feminists claim to believe, until one asks questions and the whole thing falls apart. (I’m not necessarily putting you in that category of feminists.)
“Okay, I’m concerned with women’s rights. Can I be a feminist and believe there’s no such thing as ‘the patriarchy?’” No, say the feminists. “Can I be against abortion?” Ugh, NO, certainly not. “When you claim that ‘all women experience’ or ‘all women know’ something-or-another, can I cite my life experience, which contradicts that assertion?” No, because that can’t possibly be your life experience. You’re just simply UNAWARE, you see. If you further examined your life experiences, you’d find that you DID know/experience something-or-another. “I actually didn’t, though.” Oh, you’re a not-like-other-girls pick-me, huh?! Get out, no one wants you here.
One of the things I really struggle with is use of sex-based terms in conversation or written exchanges. On a theoretical basis, I agree with Kara Dansky on this--using wrong pronouns and all the rest really is on a slippery slope. I am also sensitive, though, to what Penny Adrian has observed about this in response to Kara, and I would readily refer to Penny’s child as her son.
Generally, the problem for me comes up when talking or writing with someone about a trans-ID’d person I know to be male or female, particularly in instances where I am trying to increase awareness and don’t want to get sidetracked on the issue of pronouns. (For example, if talking about R. Levine, I absolutely refuse to use pronouns, or any word, that belongs to females.) In such cases, I work hard to avoid using pronouns at all, though this is laborious and can end up with pretzel-like sentences. I would be interested in how others handle this.
Terrific piece, Lisa. Thank you so much for so many thoughtful, incisive observations--and above all for stressing the need to make and build coalitions.
I want to lift up one of your many great observations, which has to do with how language is inscribed in law: “It is a horrifying injustice to retroactively change the meaning of language in law.” I would underscore this to note that definitions of terms (like sex in Title IX) are critically important as they are foundational to legal interpretation .
You continue, “Title IX allowed for equality between the sexes, which has a clear meaning: males and females. To either replace sex with “gender identity,” or to add gender identity as a facet of sex is to erase sex-based rights. If you want to enshrine protections based on gender identity into law, go through the front door, not the back one. I learned this from Hadley Manning, of the conservative Independent Women’s Forum.”
I have been thinking about this a lot, not only with regard to sports, but also, as another example, the US Equality Act (which contains the same problem). I love the metaphor of going through the front door, not the back door. Such a simple, elegant way to put it. Bottom line: so glad you attended ICONS, Lisa, and even happier you reported back!
Susan, I am sure you and Hadley both know that 'going through the back door' was part of the strategy from the outset. That strategy was used in the U.S. and exported to other countries. See Denton (law firm) Document herewith. https://gendercriticalwoman.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/iglyo_v3-1-2.pdf
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: “let us refuse to say what we do not think!” I will call anyone by their preferred name, their choice, but I will not lie and call a man, she, or a woman, he. Adopting superficial, stereotypical attributes of the opposite sex does not change one’s sex.
To whom you are attracted sexually is purely subjective and therefore cannot reasonably be contested by an outside observer. Your biological sex reflects an objective reality which cannot change and therefore you cannot expect someone else to confirm such a change. This is the single most important reason to divorce T from LGB. They are simply not the same thing.
Great essay! Wish I could have been at that conference! I was recently in a heated conversation with a recent college graduate (a family member). She is liberal (her Ivy League education took care of that, plus she's in the creative world), but probably largely thanks to my many conversations with her about this topic, she does admit she agrees with me about the injustice of male bodies competing against female bodies. However, she believes that not using a person's desired pronouns makes one a "hateful bigot" and she launches into impassioned statements about how much prejudice and hate the transgender community have faced. I fully agree with your point that we need to speak up, to protect girls and women, and I believe one of the most effective ways to do so is in one-on-one conversations with people who know us to the extent that it may be harder for them to immediately judge us to be bigoted a-holes. Because I think that's one of the reasons more of us don't speak up. We don't want to be misinterpreted, and considered awful people - in part because that's a painful rejection, in part because that makes us less effective. Your statement, "I understand that some adults change their bodies to feel more comfortable. As long as they know the truth, and don’t expect me to subvert what I know to be true, I’m fine with that" - resonated as I had brought this up in my discussion with this young woman. I'm a therapist, and I said, "If I know you are female, but if out of 'respect' I call you a 'he,' how is that any different from my agreeing with an anorexic client that she needs to lose weight, or with someone whose grip on reality is tenuous that they are indeed being spied on by the government? And if you agree that that is problematic and dishonest, as a therapist - is it possible that it may also be problematic and dishonest of me as a human outside the therapy office?"
I think if we could create and communicate a Venn diagram with the following, maybe that's how we build more bridges: 1) compassionate, tolerant person 2) person who is grounded in scientific reality 3) policies that protect the vulnerable and that are fair and just. Because both can be true - I can be compassionate and tolerant, while being grounded in reality and believe in biology, etc - and we can create policies that protect the vulnerable while not doing so at the cost of hard-earned rights and need for safety.
The most terrible thing many trans identified people are facing right now, in my mind, are inappropriate medical interventions, rather than support to understand themselves (and deal with their struggles without assuming they'll be fixed by medical means).
Yanno, I've been diagnosed with a cataract, the most common surgical procedure to fix on the planet. And I can't just waltz into a hospital and get it done. Apparently I have to go through a bunch of tests first to determine what sort of cataract it is, how far along it is (not very, I can still drive), and what my options are. Apparently one that is NOT is, "I want this out now, let's just do it!" I mean, yes, I'd like to have it done faster than it's getting done but I'm very glad I can't. I can't argue, "I identify with having better vision in that eye and if I don't get it, like, yesterday, I'm going to commit suicide!"
And this is *for the most common surgical procedure globally*! So something a feck of a lot more potentially damaging and irreversible like sex change should take more than, say, a minute or two of consultation and then, "Well my five year old knows what's best for him." This is why this trans crap is mostly a liberal problem. Liberals have always had a hard time saying no to their children, and suffer from the delusion that kids know what's best for them.
I'd be curious to know what this young relative would think after learning about the abuse of trans widows, women who divorced suddenly crossdressing men. Now that drag = trans = gender fluid, I have no qualms about naming them all as crossdressers. In the data I have so far from 47 trans widows on my survey, 20 Questions to Ask a Trans Widow, the reality of physical and sexual assault by these husbands who flip out if you don't let them have the "mother" category, as well as the financial profligacy, hardly recommend this behavior. Out of 47 of us so far, 18 experienced sexual assaults separate from sex role play coercion, with 4 rapes reported in my survey, but not to law enforcement. Half of us initially experienced single motherhood below the poverty line, as he refuses to pay child support. The situation is the worst for my younger trans widow sisters, as their husbands were addicted to violent porn and acted it out. The 2 incidents reported to police were the choking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkQ_g_lvfzY&t=1s
As I mentioned previously, using fraudulent pronouns only furthers the delusion that men can be some kind of woman and then it gets harder for a woman to say: 'She can't use the women's restroom' and for that not to sound weird-it is crazy-making. We should not affirm any person as something they are not by using deceptive pronouns--that is not kind or respectful of women's boundaries. Please read the article 'Pronouns Are Rohypnol' and take The Stroop Test. https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/
Great article, thanks. I habitually convert transmogrified pronouns into real-sex terms anyway, as it really messes with my brain if I don't: now I understand better some other reasons why -- beyond my irritation with writers & publishers & issuers of NUJ guidelines for untruthfulness. Also did the Stroop test and it took me FOUR times as long to read out the wrong-colour words: several times just stopped in confusion as I couldn't remember what I was supposed to be doing.
If someone tells you that he is Napoleon are you required to agree with him? If you fail to endorse his delusions are you being Napoleonphobic? It it exactly the same situation if a man tells you that he is a woman. No one can change their biological sex. The mentally ill are entitled to freely live their lives with sympathy and care but not forced acceptance of their fantasies.
I think the most important thing to remember in having conversations is to stop trying to make all the points and get people to understand every issue at once. Changing a deeply held belief is hard, even painful, and isn’t going to happen on one conversation. Pushing too hard makes people dig in more.
In my experiences in a very liberal area, everyone, even those posting and saying all the familiar activist talking points, feels uncomfortable and concerned about what’s going on with teen girls. They actually seem relieved to have another liberal bring it up and give them the opportunity to say something doesn’t feel right about what’s happening with teen girls. But don’t use that to start pushing every other issue - sports, bathrooms, prisons - all at once. People need a lot of time thinking and talking about why the issue that seems so obviously concerning to them - the spike in teen girls - is a completely taboo topic their trusted media won’t report on accurately. Stay with that.
Keep in mind that most liberals who are privately concerned about teen girls still believe in the “born in the wrong body” child who was obviously gender nonconforming since the moment they could walk and talk and has been consistent, insistent, and persistent. They assume those children are carefully monitored and assessed and have to transition because they will never grow out of it. Be prepared to share the studies showing ~80% of children will outgrow dysphoria during puberty. This was a big shock for a friend I shared this with who thought blockers were necessary for young dysphoric children. But here’s the key and the hard part: don’t jump into your opinions or the issues around the 20% who *don’t* outgrow it. Those are later conversations and potential places for allowing disagreement. One step at a time, and people don’t have to agree on everything. Trying to push perfect agreement creates even less agreement and recognition of common ground.
I once heard someone say that a person’s beliefs on this topic are based on the experiences of the happiest trans person that they personally know. I think that is key to remember and to respect and have compassion for in conversations.
Finally, although the sports issue, especially Lia Thomas, often peaks people, sports does NOT seem to work for people who are deeply dug into their beliefs. We have found they will acknowledge issues of safety and fairness, but because it’s an area of cognitive dissonance they have already recognized in themselves and feel uncomfortable with not being able to reconcile. it’s the topic they are most resistant to discussing.
A study citing the number of children who outgrow dysphoria to share if needed:
Evidence from the 10 available prospective follow-up studies from childhood to adolescence (reviewed in the study by Ristori and Steensma28) indicates that for ~80% of children who meet the criteria for GDC, the GD recedes with puberty. Instead, many of these adolescents will identify as non-heterosexual
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5841333/
Here's another study of boys from Canada who had gender dysphoria from childhood. almost 90% desisted: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8039393/
Puzzle Therapy, your suggestion to go slow and not overwhelm is so good! I'm encountering this as I speak to my kids' schools. There is so much to say, and it all feels so urgent when you see the damage that this ideology does to children, that it's hard for me to keep myself contained. But then I remember that it took me years to discover everything I have discovered, and it took time to internalize the information as well. Just knowing facts is different from the visceral feeling one gets when listening to detransitioners, for example.
And people have to come to these conclusions themselves, or else the next passionate trans-advocate that comes along will easily sway them back with emotions and false/exaggerated facts. It's only when you really get it that you are able to spot the holes in the trans-activists' arguments from a mile away.
Appreciate this comment. Thanks!
"Finally, although the sports issue, especially Lia Thomas, often peaks people, sports does NOT seem to work for people who are deeply dug into their beliefs. We have found they will acknowledge issues of safety and fairness, but because it’s an area of cognitive dissonance they have already recognized in themselves and feel uncomfortable with not being able to reconcile. it’s the topic they are most resistant to discussing."
A bastard of a good point and the best explanation I've seen so far as to why my otherwise intelligent, retired lawyer, feminist, progressive friend got SO defensive last month when I started talking about Lia Thomas. Boy oh boy did she not want to talk about that...I'm guessing she'd rather preserve her woke house of gender identity cards....
Great comment!
Lisa, I'm going to push back a bit on the Venn diagram with the "religioninsts" in it. Personally, I find that in my circles (of mostly Orthodox and Catholic Christians), there is no insistence on traditional gender/sex roles at all. There is, however, a very clear understanding that men and women are different. In our belief, the man - like Christ - is called to serve the woman, who is like the Church, and is called to love and support the man. The male-female dynamic is therefore not of subjugation or dominance, but of mutual love that may be demonstrated in different ways. And of course every couple's specific dynamic is different.
Of course, "religioninsts" may mean "those who are religious in a specific way that promotes and/or requires adherence to traditional sex roles", but it's a very narrow definition, then. It's just a bit of a pet peeve of mine that left-leaning people tend to assume that all those who are religious fit a particular mold.
But I wholeheartedly agree with your call to speak out - trying to do so whenever I can!
Thank you. It's true that this could reflect a small portion of believers. But I think it explains the overlap in feminists and some waves of the religious right. I am an atheist but I often enjoy talking to people who have faith in God, and had two amazing interviews with people who found faith during the gender battle that I'm putting in the book. I wish I had religion, but at least I have heterodoxy!
We have the Beatles. I do have quiet talks or listening or trying to be silent, sitting in my garden and asking for wisdom from my grandmother. I don't like to talk about it bc maybe it's my own brain telling me what she says but it gives me comfort. And the serenity prayer works for non-believers too. I believe in something more powerful. Love I believe in love. 💔
Thank you for this comment, I had a similar reaction to the Venn diagram. My circles also include many Orthodox and Christian people, as well as both progressive and conservative thinkers. I know plenty of exceptions to the Venn generalizations, to the point where I’m not sure its helpful. Built on stereotypes a bit. I know many conservatives who are not religious; many religious who are not conservative. Also, “Reject” versus “accept” the legitimacy of gender roles sounds too vague, dichotomous and an awful lot like the activists simplistic characterization of nuanced beliefs. Parents I coach in this space need to help their kids stop thinking in stereotypical categories. We all need to drop making assumptions based on superficial characteristics and focus on individuals unique and diverse personalities and interests.
Great reflection
I am not Christian but this is beautiful! Thanks!
I am not sure how what you describe can be called anything other than "traditional gender roles." Simply because they accept that women can learn to read and get a job doesn't mean that gender roles are not being enacted.
Emma, I think "traditional gender roles" mean something like the following: men - breadwinners, active, in charge, dominant. Women - homemakers, accepting, followers, caregivers. These are not bad things, and there probably are lots of religious families where this hierarchy or structure is actively encouraged. This is not the case in what I'm describing as the stance of the Christians I know. It's far more nuanced and rich than "women can learn to read and get a job". It's a matter of accepting that we all utilize our talents for the benefit of all, within our families and our communities, whatever these talents may be (not depending on whether they are "feminine" or "masculine"). And also a knowledge that men and women are not all just "humans" with bits stuck on in different places. Not something to get into in depth on a comments thread, but nevertheless real and beautiful. :)
I know plenty of strong, intelligent and successful women, religious and non-religious, who chose “traditional gender roles”. I get pretty nervous when anyone suggests they are ignorant or backward, by virtue of their life choices. They aren’t hurting anyone and there is good evidence their kids do better in life than kids in other family configurations.
I have absolutely no idea what you're getting at here; individual choices are not gender roles.
Individuals make choices that include gender roles, based upon their personal beliefs and values. If a woman decides to go to law school but then starts a family and decides to focus on her family, she is choosing a gender role consistent with her value of focusing on her family over her career.
A "gender role" is a sociological concept. You can choose to believe in them, in which case I strongly disagree with your beliefs. That is completely separate from your life choices.
“the role or behavior considered to be appropriate to a particular gender as determined by prevailing cultural norms.” one of several definitions I find. aren’t behaviors based upon personal choices?
The Nazi defeat was only achieved through the cooperation of the Western Allies and the Soviets. We, too, can go back to our cold wars after we defeat this modern totalitarian evil.
Yes, especially if we take the analogy another step further : trans activists terminated the pact with feminists/liberals like Nazi did with the USSR in 1941.
Excellent! Thank you, Lisa, for attending ICONS and for sharing this with us. I also see the bi-partisanship of the conference as greatly inspiring - and as the way out of this madness.
I'm wondering if there's a fourth circle in the Venn diagram at the top that represents "Third Wave Feminists", who share with gender-critical feminists a "rejection of traditional gender roles" and who are willing to "reject the reality of biological sex" in support, "intersectionally", of what they see as trans rights. The "gender affirming care = reproductive rights" proponents. In my view, they are the ones who need to be nudged to "peak". I have written a few "break up letters" to women's organizations that I can share, and encourage others to write in to those organizations that you may have supported in the past.
Would you be willing to share a break up letter with me? I also am tempted to do that in my community.
Sure. Two things to note: Lisa is collecting some great examples above, on a tab called "Letters to Change Minds". Lots of very thoughtful letters there. And, not a lot of people write back to me. Some do, some even invite me for coffee to hear me out. But some shout at me (like Adam Schiff's office) and when I asked the UCSF Gender Clinic (in an email) to advise parents of the weak evidence and to assure kids that they are not "born in the wrong body", I was reported for harassment. So, I offer this as a tool with limited effectiveness, but with, possibly, some "self care" type benefits :)
Dear ________,
Thank you for the important work that [Name of Organization] does. I have supported your organization in the past, and have been excited to keep up with your work over the years.
I noticed in your recent fundraising email [or on your website, or your social media, or at last evening’s gathering], [Name of Organization]’s support for “gender affirming care” [or the statement “gender affirming care = reproductive rights]. This statement deeply concerns me.
Your work is important and messaging matters; so I am writing to seek clarification. What does [Name of Organization] believe it is defending, when it defends “gender affirming care”? Or equate “gender affirming care” with “reproductive rights”? Are you in support of "pediatric gender affirming care" that subjects teens to life-long medication, harmful side effects, sexual disfunction and infertility? If so, to what end?
Currently, many European countries (France, England, Finland, Sweden, and Norway) have reviewed the research into “gender affirming care”, found it lacking, and rolled back or restricted such “care”. Many resources* are available now to better understand what is happening outside the US and to compare it to what is happening here: (Hannah Barnes' book about the Tavistock in England; Jamie Reed's testimony about Wash U's clinic; Leor Sapir's comparison of US and European policies; the work of Genspect; the work of Lisa Selin Davis). [use links, which haven't transferred into this comment]. Each resource exposes that the evidence for gender affirming care is weak and the risk of harm is great.
I am writing to ask [Name of Organization] to communicate clearly - and as a matter of urgency - to our children that no one is "born in the wrong body" and no gender non-conforming teen needs to medicalize, as a solution to their distress. Would you consider a message that uplifts our young people as they are?
I hope that you will consider exploring these resources and revisiting your position. I am writing to you, in your role as Development Director, because, for me, where [Name of Organization] stands on these issues matters for my charitable decision-making going forward. I look forward to your clarifications.
Thanks, Suzanne. This is helpful and your advice is appreciated. Everytime I step into this, I do some deep breathing. I don't find that tab "letters to change minds", which I also contributed to.
It's "piqued", not "peaked". The root of "pique" ironically is the French "piquer", meaning "to prick". Don't be pricked. Isn't that what this is all about, really?
1. Stick out your elbows to make room for yourself. You have to tell your truth, no matter how uncomfortable it is. The more you do this, the easier it becomes and the more oxygen there is for others who share your views. They are between 25-35% of the population. Not a small number.
2. Saying or pretending to believe that men are women is a lie. One lie leads to another. Eventually you cannot tell the truth. You cannot effect change if you do not tell the truth. Stop lying. A little bit of lying leads to big lies. Stop it.
3. Your feelings and perceptions are not false. Stop pretending they are. Other people's feelings and perceptions are NOT more important than yours. Stop it.
4. The Milgram Shock Experiment found that 65% of participants were willing to shock supposed victims TO DEATH. This is why so many people are parroting these lies. Don't participate in the lying. Your feelings actually have a biological, objective reality. You can feel it in your nervous system. Honor your body. Listen to your gut. It's directly connected to your BRAIN.
5. The further left you go, the closer you come to sharing a bed with the right-wing. Political views go in a circle--not a straight line. We are all related, biologically and intellectually. Honor that.
6. Remember that the chant that ended the Vietnam War was HELL NO, WE WON'T GO. Own it.
7. Transgender women are mentally ill men. Duh. Do not allow your natural empathy (a wonderful thing women have more than men) to be weaponized against you.
8. Watch Lierre Keith's YouTube on Non-Violent Direct Action at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2gRtXp3qp8.
THIS IS ESSENTIAL VIEWING.
9. Your rights matter. Your feelings matter. Your perceptions matter. They all have an objective reality in your body. Stay in your body. Your FEMALE body. We have abilities men lack.
10. I'm not using your fucking pronouns. And you're not using my fucking bathroom. Get over it. FYI, your taste in clothing sucks.
11. Why are all these young women being diagnosed as autistic? They don't appear to me to be and I've worked with autistic youth. What is going on here? Why is the problem in the kids and not in the society? WHERE ARE THE GROWN-UPS? WHERE ARE THE FEMINIST TEACHERS AND SHRINKS?
12. Nothing wrong with conservative Christians as long as they don't put their religion on me. Some of them have some pretty riveting things to say. Looking at a problem from multiple points of view is necessary. They are necessary allies. Welcome them. Their religion is theirs; your spiritual practice is yours. It's not that complicated.
In this case, peaking is about when people wake up from wokeness. It's not about piquing one's interest. See the other explanation! But in general I do appreciate copyediting notes!
I thought at first (a year or two ago) that "peaked" must be a mistake, a misspelling of "piqued" until I realised it wasn't: it has a different meaning. People are "peaked" (in this context) when they reach some critical threshold that tips them into a new state of awareness about the absurdity and outrage of gender cult pretensions, arrogance, bullying or whatever. Whereas "piqued" is just to have one's interest stimulated a bit.
Maybe that will become a fourth meaning. But there are currently three acknowledged meanings, none of which make sense in this usage re trans ideology:
peaked
pēkt, pē′kĭd
adjective
1 Ending in a peak; pointed.
2. Pointed; ending in a point.
3.Sickly; not robust.
Pique isn't only about being interested. It can be aggravated or aroused by something, whatever. I think this is the proper spelling in this sense. Maybe it needs a stronger word. But I'm a writer and I care about language so I made a comment about it. Sorry. It's beside the point.
My additional comment on the subject referred to this statement. I personally was not piqued or peaked. I was made aware of what was going--I generally view the American obsession with sex as a twisted form of its Puritanism and fear of death so I just ignore these arguments and identities and I do not consider them human sexualities; rather, they are an expression of WESTERN culture. You won't find any words referring to them in most languages, unless they have taken the English terms and modified them a little. It's a form of cultural colonialism, in my opinion. I think it was probably Jennifer Bilek and Genevieve Gluck who discussed issues that I have (decades ago) some personal experience with--i.e. I knew someone who was part of the Man-Boy Love ludicrousness, and pedophilia is an issue in many large cities, especially one I used to live in when my son was little (and is the reason we initially left, frankly) and it's mostly done by men, and the ridiculousness of allowing male convicts to serve their time in women's prisons is a bit much, especially since half of them committed violent crimes against women. That's commonsense. Then we go off the deep end into eunuchism and nullification. I knew someone with autogynephilia in college--he did a wonderful drag performance that did NOT mock women and was not inappropriately sexualized and he did consider his fetish a form of psychological dysfunction. He was a terrific performer. Most drag these days is just Puritanism turned on its head. Anyway, I wasn't peaked or piqued. I was outraged when I learned how extreme the ideology has become and who is pushing it on the society. Do what you want with your life. But do not intrude on my right to live mine in peace. And do not threaten my kid's sanity and physical safety.
So I wasn't peaked or piqued. I was educated, maybe, or had previous memories triggered. I call them memories and not traumas. And my kid is a middle-aged man now (who thinks I'm a transphobe!). Most of my women friends are not following this and try to be "kind". They are not thinking very deeply about it. Some who consider me a transphobe and "hateful" are only listening to the trans propaganda and do not believe these stories about transwomen raping women in women's prisons as true, probably because they appear primarily in the conservative press since the mainstream and leftist press censor these stories and won't print them. They do not believe autogynephilia is connected to the trans movement (if they even know what it is). They do not believe men want to rape boys and call it a consenting relationship. They do not believe men get their rocks off on thinking about or being castrated, or that some groom little boys in order to castrate them. Nullification is over the top--I don't think very many people know what that is.
I'm still not clear what is meant by "woke". If it means "politically correct", maybe. I dislike the term. Everyone else is asleep? I assumed it was a right-wing term but apparently not.
I do not believe in putting young children in daycare so their parents can continue their careers. This is what happens. We now have several generations who have been raised by their peers and when children do not have significant bonds to multi-generations they are vulnerable. Maybe it's retro, but I think if you are going to have a kid, the mother needs to be home with that kid 24/7 for the first two years. Fathers are not mothers any more than men are women. The mother-child bond in infancy is undervalued in this society. It affects everything later on.
If you look at TERFy discourse on Twitter -- where I repeatedly encountered the term "peaked" -- the "fourth meaning" that you think it will "maybe" have has been common usage for years. (Though it might be less common elsewhere.) I had to infer its meaning from contextual usage, where substituting "piqued" didn't fit. (Spurred to further interest, mildly put out or annoyed, are not equivalent to being overwhelmed and outraged: with a further suggestion of sudden realisation or awakening to the truth of a situation.) As a native English speaker & writer I learnt French, Latin & German starting 70 years ago & have always been interested in usage and etymology.
Well, this is cultural miscommunication. I am also a native English speaker but was born and raised in the M.E. where most people speak 3-5 language by the age of 5. But I do not do Twitter. I've hated it since Diane Rehm started communicating with people with "tweets". You can't really communicate well in a tweet. They're too short. So I have no idea what is happening on Twitter beyond silly videos friends send me. And I don't consider Twitter a serious reference. I do follow TERFs. I am one, and wear the term proudly. But I've never heard this word usage before. It's not made it into the dictionary yet, even though Oxford says a woman is an individual who identifies as a woman. So it's not part of the language yet, in my opinion.
You might not like or use Twitter (now "X") yourself, but it remains a platform where politicians and journalists, authors, broadcasters etc -- and politically minded people generally -- exchange news and views. The character limit on Tweets is overcome by using a series of them.
The discourse on trans issues is particularly thriving and sometimes virulent: though the hate and bigotry comes from transactivists, not those they project it onto.
New terms or usage frequently enter language from more specialised origins, as "peaked" appears to. I wouldn't use the term because I dislike it. But I remember exactly the situation to which it could be applied. I read an article in the local newspaper about a female Professor of Philosophy (Kathleen Stock) at a local university (of Sussex): she was being hounded out of her job by baying mobs of students who called her a "hater" and a "transphobe" for the crime of belief in the reality of biological sex. (Hardly surprising, for a lesbian.) But she was unsupported either by teaching colleagues or by university administration (and eventually resigned her job).
I was shocked by this all-round callous treatment, and looked her up on Twitter: said something to which I got immediate accusations (by transactivist vigilantes) of being a "TERF". Had to Google for the meaning of this: to find it was "Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist". Well yes: been a feminist all my life and a radical feminist since the 1970s. I also objected to males in female-only spaces. And if this was how transactivists behaved, it was shocking and shameful.
Put this on Twitter & several women replied to say "this happened to me too". They'd all been called "TERFs", had to find out what it meant -- and agreed.
We'd all been "peaked".
Okay. Now I REALLY don't understand the meaning of "peaked" as you are using it. Please give me a definition that refers to your last statement.
Did you watch Kathleen Stock's discussion at Oxford? A female student GLUED herself to the podium so the beginning of the event was delayed while they unstuck the fool. I thought Oxford was a GOOD school. I am so glad I am not a university student today. I think I would probably drop out and just get my education at the library.
Excellent piece read in UK. Thanks. Yes, in bed with strange bedfellows and being effective. Necessary and character building for all of us!
I just wish I could finally get through to my adult kids. They persist in believing I'm a terfy dinosaur....although the women's sports issues do surprisingly cut through - when other parts of the issue remain 'be kind'.. They want to be seen as diversity-aware in a culture where your opinions are on show. But calling kind forward-looking people as bigots really isn't kind is it!
Michelle below. Your views are spot on in my opinion. Your clients get congruence!
I'm thinking about watching Trumbo with my kids…again. The McCarthyism parallels are difficult to ignore. I don't know if I've ever lived during a time when free speech is dangerous and asking serious questions leaves one to ridicule, and expressing educated opinions about women’s rights and harm to kids is a radical view that even saying something reasonable out loud could one’s job at risk, ostracization from friends and family, AND parental rights are all taboo. Bc the wrong person with an agenda could use my words as a weapon.
” Welch was stunned. As he struggled to maintain his composure, he looked at McCarthy and declared, “Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness.” It was then McCarthy’s turn to be stunned into silence, as Welch asked, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”
The audience of citizens and newspaper and television reporters burst into wild applause. Just a week later, the hearings into the Army came to a close.
The Oppenheimer film addresses this too. History…repeats itself in different forms. I want the Make Orwell Fiction Again t-shirt. I need it.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/joseph-mccarthy-meets-his-match
What do your kids think about masked male transactivists swathed in black who attack women for trying to listen to other women speak? And fracture the skull of a 71 year old woman? Who wear T shirts and carry placards saying KILL TERFS? Or PUNCH A TERF TODAY? Who refuse to let anyone speak who doesn't agree with them? Who send death threats to anyone who dares speak up? Who get people fired from their jobs for saying that biological sex is real?
Are they "being kind"?
Great article. You actually inspired me to contact my school's Title IX office about the erasure of "sex" in campus non-discrimination statements. Many refer only to gender identity and/or expression. I've been meaning to speak up for a while now.
"LGB is about same-sex attraction. T, on the other hand, has generally been about either being attracted to oneself as the opposite sex, …"
I've never understood why this basic difference isn't more controversial. How did T get tacked on without any debate?
One answer: virtue signaling trumps solidarity. I see this as an example of the class struggle over values. It's important for elites to claim moral superiority over the unwashed by throwing their weight behind the beleaguered trans community because that's their merit badge of distinction. In their minds it sets them apart from the little people with their backward ideas about gender.
David, related to your point, I think Lisa’s title, about “coalition building,” is important, and to be distinguished from the empty virtue signaling you describe. As an “L,” I am very happy, and indeed I welcome, the opportunity to work in coalition with non-Ls to achieve mutually desired goals, but this should not come at the expense of understanding that those working together may also have separable interests and concerns, sometimes even in opposition to one another. This discussion between Julie Bindel and Doug Murray is excellent on one aspect of that: https://youtu.be/YysgbnBohhc. On the empty virtue signaling front, I am beyond frustrated at the blithe, ubiquitous assumption that LGBTQ+alphabet soup is in any way a coherent “community.” As I have pointed out more than once to electeds who use this term, this is like saying everyone who is not white belongs to a single “community.” It does all of us with legitimate, discrete interests and concerns a huge disservice to lump everyone together. Indeed, it’s an insult.
Perhaps it's a community most to those who don't belong to it.
Well, that there is one insightful comment!!
💯💯💯
And one can't underestimate the power of the rainbow flag manufacturer's lobby.
HIV became a non-issue and the LGBTQ non-profits needed money because there was no longer all that funding for HIV/AIDS. A couple billionaires offered money if they would take on the trans issue because they are invested in these medical procedures, hormones, puberty blockers AND FUTURE TRANSHUMANIST PROCEDURES AND PROJECTS. Not only LGBTQ. They colonized the friggin' ACLU. This is how "T" got added in. Now there's so much money involved for so many institutions, it's a huge snowball. But snow balls do melt. They do not like to talk about autogynephilia which is a sexual fetish. They want to talk about being born in the wrong body which is supposedly a biological problem. "Gender Queer" quotes a Ph.D. named Patricia Churchland who posits exactly how this happens during the development of the foetus in utero. Only problem is if you research Patricia Churchland's background, she doesn't have a degree in Biology. Her degrees are in Philosophy. There's no there there. I don't have a degree in Biology either so do not know if what she posits is valid or not but I won't take her word for it. I do know that chromosomally male (or female) is for keeps, no matter what.
This is a huge distraction while the WEF prepares for the big change to CBDCs to hide the fact that the US dollar (and all currencies riding its coattails) is going to crash.
Thanks for your response.
Not me. Most of this info I got from following Jennifer Bilek. She's been following the money. Highly recommend her substack and/or YouTubes.
It got tacked on deliberately. I think Joyce's book tracks it. Also here maybe? https://www.trust.org/publications/i/?id=8cf56139-c7bb-447c-babf-dd5ae56cd177
How do you deprogram jihadis? We underestimate the depth of the ideological online radicalization that's happened in the English speaking world since the 2020 cataclysm of George Floyd's murder, the pandemic and the summer of protest riots. Antifa and Trans Rights Activists have seized the moment and are making headway fast while we're still trying to be reasonable. Yes, try to sway the hearts and minds of friends and family, but also force our leaders to prosecute and lock up violent and threatening TRAs. This is a terrorist threat and it's time to treat it as such.
Well, maybe we should have a screening of The Unredacted (formerly Jihad Rehab) and talk about it. I choose to try to deprogram with evidence and stories of those getting hurt, but the trans activist tactics are basically a kind of emotional abuse (more on that in a post soon) of threats. Not sure if what I'm doing can stand up to that. Also, providing off-ramps for Dems and others who've invested—ways to be supportive of gender diversity but not of gender identity ideology. Which is why trans-inclusivity in the resistance is important in the grand scheme of things, but of course lots of different groups can define their boundaries however they need to.
You have an army of parents, parents, feminists, and journalists supporting you. Don't forget that. We are on fire. Only 10% of the iceberg is exposed. A tsunami of truth is coming and when European docs school American docs…that’s a first. I can't believe how much has changed from November 2021 to now. I could only find 2 articles on this topic:
Lisa Littman’s ROGD study
Abigail Shrier’s book
WaPo Op-Ed by Drs Edward—Leeper & Anderson
Jesse Singal’s 2018 piece in The Atlantic
60 Minutes episode about detransioners (I had never heard the word detransioner.
Then I found the Gender a Wider Lense and listened to every episode.
When I saw Dr. Edwards-Leeper on the front page of the NYTS the same day I had my first parent appointment with her…I started believing in God, well I already did bc of the Beatles and Prince. I thought things are changing I have hope.
Also new book “lost in trans nation” by Miriam Grossman MD just came out with so much sensible information. Many folks are waking up.
..”well I already did because of The Beatles and Prince...”.
Made my afternoon.
🎸 🤠
This is such a great point: “providing off-ramps for Dems and others who've invested—ways to be supportive of gender diversity but not of gender identity ideology.”
What you're doing is amazing! Yes, it takes a variety of tactics to counter this insidious tangle of ideologies. We need more coverage of, and outrage over, the violent tactics of the TRAs including the de-voicing of women through career destruction, threats of violence and shaming. Tucker Carlson was astute when he joked during his interview with Posie Parker: "You've got to hand it to the left with this trans stuff, they figured out how to shut women up!" Not yet they haven't! Thanks for your brave voice inspiring us all!
I've spent the last four years discovering how to deliver any information about the impact of trans ideology on society to my community. It was interesting to discover what arguments people will use to advance their trans supportive agenda. I made it a daily practice to debunk their arguments so many memes were they deploying. I found out what was effective and what got me unfriended or shut up and those conversations became the basis of my book "The Unexpected Penis: Conversations on the Gender Trail".
So my first rule is to start where they are. I agree that information has to be delivered in very small packets because it will all be an experience of cognitive dissonance and you have to let each experience of dissonance sink in. In my case the first dissonance is to my advantage because I'm a lesbian talking to them from my 35 years of being in the San Francisco gay community and I was the first publicly open lesbian in Palo Alto in 1992 where I lived at the time. So people are willing to listen to me except for my LGB peers who are horrified at the extent of my betrayal so I lost pretty much all of them.
So I paid a price, but it was worth it to become part of this coalition you describe above. As a biracial person and immigrant informed by three cultures I am nurtured by these cross cultural experiences and now I have new friends who are smarter, braver and more socially adept at negotiating our current society than those I lost.
Love this title. I need to read it and we need to talk!
Thank you and I'd love to talk. The more we join forces the stronger we become.
I just saw your interview w/ Bejamin Boyce and found it to be fascinating. I too have been quite frustrated by people who seem so daft about the 'trans' issue and can't seem to understand the damage it is doing to women's rights and to young people and esp. to lesbians and gays.
Many in the LGB community never bought into the 'trans' nonsense or have come to their senses about it. But some get sucked into the 'gender vortex' and I want to say to them 'Can't you see that you are sawing off the limb you sitting on?' And as far as losing friends over this issue I realized that afterall I just lost the friends that needed losing and found others on the way through this madness. Here is the link to your interesting interview. https://amandakovattana.substack.com/p/breaking-the-narrative-on-gender
“…feminism—which I shall define today as a person concerned with women’s rights (what’s your definition?)”
This is one of those wide-ranging, inclusive definitions that a lot of feminists claim to believe, until one asks questions and the whole thing falls apart. (I’m not necessarily putting you in that category of feminists.)
“Okay, I’m concerned with women’s rights. Can I be a feminist and believe there’s no such thing as ‘the patriarchy?’” No, say the feminists. “Can I be against abortion?” Ugh, NO, certainly not. “When you claim that ‘all women experience’ or ‘all women know’ something-or-another, can I cite my life experience, which contradicts that assertion?” No, because that can’t possibly be your life experience. You’re just simply UNAWARE, you see. If you further examined your life experiences, you’d find that you DID know/experience something-or-another. “I actually didn’t, though.” Oh, you’re a not-like-other-girls pick-me, huh?! Get out, no one wants you here.
One of the things I really struggle with is use of sex-based terms in conversation or written exchanges. On a theoretical basis, I agree with Kara Dansky on this--using wrong pronouns and all the rest really is on a slippery slope. I am also sensitive, though, to what Penny Adrian has observed about this in response to Kara, and I would readily refer to Penny’s child as her son.
Generally, the problem for me comes up when talking or writing with someone about a trans-ID’d person I know to be male or female, particularly in instances where I am trying to increase awareness and don’t want to get sidetracked on the issue of pronouns. (For example, if talking about R. Levine, I absolutely refuse to use pronouns, or any word, that belongs to females.) In such cases, I work hard to avoid using pronouns at all, though this is laborious and can end up with pretzel-like sentences. I would be interested in how others handle this.
Terrific piece, Lisa. Thank you so much for so many thoughtful, incisive observations--and above all for stressing the need to make and build coalitions.
I want to lift up one of your many great observations, which has to do with how language is inscribed in law: “It is a horrifying injustice to retroactively change the meaning of language in law.” I would underscore this to note that definitions of terms (like sex in Title IX) are critically important as they are foundational to legal interpretation .
You continue, “Title IX allowed for equality between the sexes, which has a clear meaning: males and females. To either replace sex with “gender identity,” or to add gender identity as a facet of sex is to erase sex-based rights. If you want to enshrine protections based on gender identity into law, go through the front door, not the back one. I learned this from Hadley Manning, of the conservative Independent Women’s Forum.”
I have been thinking about this a lot, not only with regard to sports, but also, as another example, the US Equality Act (which contains the same problem). I love the metaphor of going through the front door, not the back door. Such a simple, elegant way to put it. Bottom line: so glad you attended ICONS, Lisa, and even happier you reported back!
Susan, I am sure you and Hadley both know that 'going through the back door' was part of the strategy from the outset. That strategy was used in the U.S. and exported to other countries. See Denton (law firm) Document herewith. https://gendercriticalwoman.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/iglyo_v3-1-2.pdf
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: “let us refuse to say what we do not think!” I will call anyone by their preferred name, their choice, but I will not lie and call a man, she, or a woman, he. Adopting superficial, stereotypical attributes of the opposite sex does not change one’s sex.
To whom you are attracted sexually is purely subjective and therefore cannot reasonably be contested by an outside observer. Your biological sex reflects an objective reality which cannot change and therefore you cannot expect someone else to confirm such a change. This is the single most important reason to divorce T from LGB. They are simply not the same thing.