I was at one of those meetings to support Maud's resolution. It was insane. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13528253/Trans-activists-Manhattan-school-board-girls-sports.html. Chase was there, and shouted at me from across the room. Meanwhile, though I completely understand Maud's shift to R, I remain firmly where I am--profoundly pissed off at my own party leaders, including your Senator, the former Majority Leader.
You have your work cut out in your D party. It’s off its rocker. It is at the precipice now with the current Trump administration. Policies favoring the vast majority of citizens in both Blue and Red states and cities is clear: sex based standards in girls sports, locker rooms and bathrooms. A majorities’ will will win out over time. But during that time the D party is doing enormous damage to itself. Unbridled support for trans women on the issue will undo the D party. Parents and boys and girls in sports won’t have it.
"Democracy" in the US -- literally, "rule by the common people" -- ended a long time ago.
It was certainly completely dead by the time that Biden's Ed Dept and EEOC issued rulings (with the force of law) requiring every girl and every woman who must shower and change at school or work to allow any boy or man who feels like it watch her do it.
There was no vote of the people. There was not even a vote of the people's representatives in Congress.
Biden waved his imperial hand, and it was done.
So: do not speak to me of "the end of democracy". Democracy has already ended. It's now just a matter of which authoritarian ideology will rule.
Democracy, at least representative democracy, doesn't mean that everyone gets a chance to chime in before every decision is made. It also doesn't mean there won't be bad actors, and bullies, who try to enact stupid, ill-informed or self-serving policies. But it does mean that everyone has a chance to object to the policies, that in the next election voters will have a chance to push back and change the direction of policies by electing someone new. I believe that these horrific policies you mention are part of what landed us with Trump. So democracy worked, right? Democracy is messy. Democracy takes time. When we get into trouble is when it's undermined, through mis-information (WPATH, MAGA, Kremlin propaganda, X...), and when the people we elect don't hold themselves, each other, and their leaders to account. That's what we're facing now. We traded well-meaning people who have been brainwashed by gender ideology with corrupt wanna-be oligarchs and autocrats.
We traded totalitarian ideologues (who despise democracy and want to replace it with ideological rule by them, and are doing exactly that in Canada, the UK, and most of Europe) for authoritarian criminals who really don't care, as long as they get paid.
I can't believe we're having this conversation at all, but I'm glad we finally can. I was cancelled a few years back when I first heard about the "non binary" hoopla and said that it was the most anti feminist thing I'd ever heard of. You don't like the way you're treated as a woman? Then fight, don't just abandon us. Today I'm wearing no make up, jeans, my hair is short, I'm eating alone at a restaurant and can't wait to drive super fast on an Italian freeway later. Does this make me a man? I have no kids and I'm middle aged so I don't exactly have skin in the game as you do, but I'm a woman who has experienced every shitful thing women experience--sexual discrimination at work, parents who never let me out of the house, endometriosis and polyps, bleeding on chairs in public places, heels that made me bleed (the blood theme is everywhere when you're a chick). Not every woman faces these things but most of the women I know have. Being a woman isn't a feeling that you turn on, but it's a fucking nightmare at times.
One nit to pick, based on my experience of how surprisingly easily confused the disengaged can be when a writer speaks of a "trans woman" and proceeds to use his preferred pronouns. I don't know if this is a combination of declining literacy or just because people unconsciously let the pronouns lead when it comes to reading comprehension; but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts many of those heretofore under-informed that you hope your piece will persuade will read through the whole thing and never realize that Alaina Daniels is actually a man, NOT a woman. But, of course, that's just my theory. I don't know what the research (if any) on this reveals. I just suspect people not already savvy to this will need it spelled out for them what these "Aunties" actually are . . .
I have been lately delving into convos about the so-called "woke right." The framing proposed by Andrew Doyle, a U.K. comedian who's an exceptionally well-read and -- I think -- effective analyser of the fashionable ideologies of the times suggests that the thing that both "woke," and the increasingly energetic wing of MAGA people are starting to call "woke" as well, have in common is authoritarianism. That is what is obscured by this "conservative vs. liberal" framing.
As Doyle ( see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9LebwsT4TU ) points out, there is nothing remotely liberal (at least in the history of political philosophy sense of the term) about that basket of stances we refer to as "woke." And there is very little principled "conservatism" within the agenda of MAGA either. They're two political groups composed of individuals who have apparently regressed to the level of primitive tribes, who each point accusatory fingers at the other for the very same fallacious argument and selective blindness to evidence that they themselves constantly engage in.
I am reminded of scenes from that excellent Sean Connery and Michael Caine movie, The Man Who Would Be King, in which the adventurers encounter one riverside tribe after another, each of whom reels off an identical list of grievances and accusations about the tribe upstream.
Helen Pluckrose is also excellent on the horseshoe of Woke, left and right. It should be easy for a sane middle to emerge (classically liberal perhaps) but of course the media space acts against it.
I suspect that one reason the NYT et al. reject pieces like this is essentially the same reason that Ross Barkan gave to Jesse Singal for why he shouldn't keep writing about gender/trans issues. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYTM58SVpuM) It's some version of "Why do you care so much about this? We're talking about such a small number of people!"
Sometimes the argument is about specific areas where "almost no one" is affected or "this almost never happens": Hardly any kids get gender-affirming surgeries; only a few men are playing in women's sports (didn't John Oliver use this argument?); a small minority of male prisoners are raping women.
Aside from the thousands of people affected in those examples, there are many ways that gender mythology affects almost all of us, from laws that criminalize misgendering and "deadnaming" to the disappearance of single-sex spaces to families that are torn apart by one person's claim to have been born in the wrong body.
The most obvious way that we're all affected is by the teaching of this mythology as fact in public schools, beginning in kindergarten. Because of this ideological capture, we need to be talking about all of these issues more, not less, than is currently permitted by public officials, activists, and the MSM. Thank you, Lisa, for continuing to stand up to those bullies.
There will never be open discussion about this until people in our liberal bubbles wake up to the intrinsic authoritarianism of the transgender movement, which is unlikely to happen until they wake up to the intrinsic authoritarianism of what is currently labeled progressivism more broadly.
This point was just driven home for me again when I came across a set of articles written for a student newspaper by the son of a family I know, who "discovered" he was non-binary as a teenager and is now, as a young adult, on hormones and uses she/her pronouns. Besides an autobiographical piece that contained every cliché you can possibly think of how a smart, sensitive kid becomes "trans" (history of mental health issues suddenly made sense of by the "discovery" of a trans identity thanks to conversations with a non-binary friend), he also wrote articles in which he labeled any disagreement with gender identity ideology as transphobia, and put people who hold such views in the same camp as flat-earthers (and anti-vaxxers, Covid deniers, and climate deniers) not worthy of engagement, who must be censored in order to prevent the impressionable middle from being swayed by their misinformation. He also apparently initiated an unsuccessful effort to get an allegedly transphobic female professor at his college ousted from her job.
It was interesting to see such an explicit articulation of an anti-open discourse stance so closely intertwined with a trans identity, which he explicitly describes as defined by victimhood, persecution and oppression (despite his extremely privileged social status), and a way of resistance against white supremacy, heteronormativity, and - most ironically - the patriarchy. If this is what the young elite of this country thinks like, I don't have much hope.
I hope some of those press outlets will actually publish this. And I hope you never quit expressing your opinions on this - from where I’m sitting, you ‘re just making plain old common sense in a world that seems pretty damn bonkers over ‘trans”.
I was at the meeting on Wednesday, after taking a few months off. Nothing has really changed. The group still gathers outside in advance to get pumped up on their own arrogance, and then proceeds to make the same illogical, misleading and, in many cases, absolutely false statements over and over again, accusing the Board of being evil for having dared to question whether male-bodied individuals in female sports is a good idea, whether it is fair to girls or safe when it comes to contact sports. The whole tone of the activists, including the 4 on the Board, is that there is one and only one right way to think about this issue, and that the resolution that dares to question that is pure evil - not just perhaps ill-advised, not just mistaken, not just unworkable - but pure evil.
They still dance the Macarena when anyone dares to express disagreement with their position. Although I've spoken at 3 meetings before this one, I seem to have a face nobody remembers so they didn't immediately start the dance when I got up. It was once I dared to question whether it is in fact evil to speculate that it might be unfair or unsafe to have male-bodied individuals in female sports that they got up. Then, they danced with more fervor as I dared to question their belief system. I suggested that perhaps, when a same-sex attracted, or autistic, or just quirky and different child or teen expresses discomfort with their body, it might be a good idea to let that child grow up with an intact body. I acknowledged that some parents, upon hearing their child's discomfort with their sexed body, would immediately agree that the body is wrong and assure their child that it will be "fixed," and then I suggested that some loving parents might not want to chemically or surgically alter their child's growing, healthy body, but might like to let that child grow up with their body intact - and again asked if this was "evil."
I doubt I changed anyone's mind, but I felt I had to speak, if only to assure the Board majority that many District 2 parents (even though my kids graduated already) don't see Resolution 248 [which is dead in the water because the DOE will not even consider changing its insane sports policy!] as evil.
If the activists think I'm a right-wing bigot, so be it. They don't know me, so their opinion doesn't matter at all, and anyone who knows me knows exactly why I think what I think - and it has nothing to do with hatred. If any of the activists actually listened to my words, they would know I want what they say they want - to protect vulnerable kids from harm and make sure all kids feel valued and respected.
Although I agree with you that we'd all be better off creating environments in which multiple viewpoints can be heard, the pro-trans activists are so emotionally charged on the issue that their brains literally ignore rational thought and logic. The name calling, the shouting, the crying, the meltdowns, the temper tantrums are a form of (hopefully) temporary insanity. Out logic-ing insanity does not work. Until people are emotionally stable, healthy debate is impossible.
Maybe we need to explore new tools to help us cognitively-compromised humans (whose frontal cortices tend to go "Tilt!" whenever a smidgeon of adrenalyn comes on the scene) participate in debates more effectively? I'm rather excited after listening to an interview with philosopher and innovator Simon Cullen. (See "Can This AI Tool Save Campus Dialogue?" on the Heterodox Academy YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM5hewQ3Keo )
Description: "In conversation with John Tomasi, Simon explores how open inquiry is both advanced and imperiled by disagreement, and describes his academic journey from Australia to Princeton and Carnegie Mellon. Central to the discussion is ‘Sway’ an AI-powered platform developed by Simon and his team to foster rigorous, evidence-based dialogue among students on controversial topics. Sway intelligently pairs students with opposing views and acts as a “guide on the side,” scaffolding reasoning, encouraging intellectual humility, and ensuring that exchanges remain constructive and charitable. Simon shares the empirical findings from thousands of Sway-mediated dialogues, where measurable increases in students’ openness, comfort, and analytical reasoning have been observed—even on divisive subjects like gender, immigration, and the Israel-Palestine conflict."
Cullen and his colleagues have been seeing great success when using the tool to facilitate productive conversations between university students on the topic of trans: https://www.swaybeta.ai/ It's free. Check it out!
Yeah, just as they fail to appreciate that being able to (at a glance, usually) distinguish between adult males and adult females is instinctual for the overwhelming majority of humans, we're also pretty good at clocking which of us have seriously compromised health. In classic literature, there are many references to an instinctive feeling of unease or foreboding when one character encounters another on the doorstep of death, using phrases like "shadow of death" or describing an atmosphere of doom, a chill or a darkening mood, reflecting a primal human capacity to detect mortality, akin to animals sensing danger.
A lot of Catholic Churches and schools buy into this. In our archdiocese, there are priests with pronouns in their bios. And most of the Protestant churches around us signal support for this one way or another, some to quite extreme degrees. Religious schools can be a problem too.
No. Even if you can find a school that on paper does not engage in this, you frequently will have at least one or two teachers who feel they are the "safe teachers" rebelling from the inside and saving all these children. even if you could find a school where there is no one doing this, the culture is so saturated with it they will find it somewhere else
Yes, I guess it’s the *professions* more than the institutions that are the problem. Teacher education is about gender ideology, so they bring it into schools. Schools don’t fire a gender ideologue, but that one person can do damage.
And what can a parent do if some teachers are stealth cultists?
To whom you are attracted sexually is purely subjective and therefore cannot reasonably be contested by an outside observer.
Where you decide to live your life on a spectrum of superficial, stereotypical male to female attributes (and we all do) is also purely subjective and similarly cannot be questioned.
However, your biological sex reflects an objective reality which cannot be changed by your subjective personal view and futile attempts to do so can result in serious health impacts to you as well as harms to members of the sex you are impersonating (primarily women).
Others who are grounded in objective reality should never be forced to accept your subjective version of your actual biological sex.
Finally, it's past time for the LGB community to separate themselves from the trans activists who are trying to take away the rights of women to fairness in sports and to privacy and safety in their restrooms, locker rooms and prisons. They also advocate for the chemical and surgical mutilation of children many of whom would grow up gay.
Their actions are evil and the
understandable negative reaction to the harm they are causing is spilling over to innocent people who are just going about their business, marrying and leading their lives.
Some reporters at the New York Times are working on a story about bans on gender-affirming care, where it came from, and the political fight around it. They put out a request this morning on the Daily podcast for kids or parents with direct experience with gender-affirming care. They want people with direct-experience stories to send voice memos to genderstory@nytimes.com. I think they need to hear from us.
Thank you, Lisa. I hope your piece makes it into the paper. I didn’t quite get the “trans teenager” reference. I guess it just illustrates the absurdity of the protesters. I am so embarrassed that we libs are giving these loud nonsensical arguments such a big platform.
I was at one of those meetings to support Maud's resolution. It was insane. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13528253/Trans-activists-Manhattan-school-board-girls-sports.html. Chase was there, and shouted at me from across the room. Meanwhile, though I completely understand Maud's shift to R, I remain firmly where I am--profoundly pissed off at my own party leaders, including your Senator, the former Majority Leader.
You have your work cut out in your D party. It’s off its rocker. It is at the precipice now with the current Trump administration. Policies favoring the vast majority of citizens in both Blue and Red states and cities is clear: sex based standards in girls sports, locker rooms and bathrooms. A majorities’ will will win out over time. But during that time the D party is doing enormous damage to itself. Unbridled support for trans women on the issue will undo the D party. Parents and boys and girls in sports won’t have it.
The only path to defeating gender ideology in the US is through putting Republicans in power at all levels.
The evidence for this is overwhelming.
You know this perfectly well, you wrote two books about it.
If only that didn't also mean the end of Democracy.
"Democracy" in the US -- literally, "rule by the common people" -- ended a long time ago.
It was certainly completely dead by the time that Biden's Ed Dept and EEOC issued rulings (with the force of law) requiring every girl and every woman who must shower and change at school or work to allow any boy or man who feels like it watch her do it.
There was no vote of the people. There was not even a vote of the people's representatives in Congress.
Biden waved his imperial hand, and it was done.
So: do not speak to me of "the end of democracy". Democracy has already ended. It's now just a matter of which authoritarian ideology will rule.
Democracy, at least representative democracy, doesn't mean that everyone gets a chance to chime in before every decision is made. It also doesn't mean there won't be bad actors, and bullies, who try to enact stupid, ill-informed or self-serving policies. But it does mean that everyone has a chance to object to the policies, that in the next election voters will have a chance to push back and change the direction of policies by electing someone new. I believe that these horrific policies you mention are part of what landed us with Trump. So democracy worked, right? Democracy is messy. Democracy takes time. When we get into trouble is when it's undermined, through mis-information (WPATH, MAGA, Kremlin propaganda, X...), and when the people we elect don't hold themselves, each other, and their leaders to account. That's what we're facing now. We traded well-meaning people who have been brainwashed by gender ideology with corrupt wanna-be oligarchs and autocrats.
We traded totalitarian ideologues (who despise democracy and want to replace it with ideological rule by them, and are doing exactly that in Canada, the UK, and most of Europe) for authoritarian criminals who really don't care, as long as they get paid.
I'm happy with the trade.
I can't believe we're having this conversation at all, but I'm glad we finally can. I was cancelled a few years back when I first heard about the "non binary" hoopla and said that it was the most anti feminist thing I'd ever heard of. You don't like the way you're treated as a woman? Then fight, don't just abandon us. Today I'm wearing no make up, jeans, my hair is short, I'm eating alone at a restaurant and can't wait to drive super fast on an Italian freeway later. Does this make me a man? I have no kids and I'm middle aged so I don't exactly have skin in the game as you do, but I'm a woman who has experienced every shitful thing women experience--sexual discrimination at work, parents who never let me out of the house, endometriosis and polyps, bleeding on chairs in public places, heels that made me bleed (the blood theme is everywhere when you're a chick). Not every woman faces these things but most of the women I know have. Being a woman isn't a feeling that you turn on, but it's a fucking nightmare at times.
Fantastic reporting "from the trenches."
One nit to pick, based on my experience of how surprisingly easily confused the disengaged can be when a writer speaks of a "trans woman" and proceeds to use his preferred pronouns. I don't know if this is a combination of declining literacy or just because people unconsciously let the pronouns lead when it comes to reading comprehension; but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts many of those heretofore under-informed that you hope your piece will persuade will read through the whole thing and never realize that Alaina Daniels is actually a man, NOT a woman. But, of course, that's just my theory. I don't know what the research (if any) on this reveals. I just suspect people not already savvy to this will need it spelled out for them what these "Aunties" actually are . . .
I have been lately delving into convos about the so-called "woke right." The framing proposed by Andrew Doyle, a U.K. comedian who's an exceptionally well-read and -- I think -- effective analyser of the fashionable ideologies of the times suggests that the thing that both "woke," and the increasingly energetic wing of MAGA people are starting to call "woke" as well, have in common is authoritarianism. That is what is obscured by this "conservative vs. liberal" framing.
As Doyle ( see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9LebwsT4TU ) points out, there is nothing remotely liberal (at least in the history of political philosophy sense of the term) about that basket of stances we refer to as "woke." And there is very little principled "conservatism" within the agenda of MAGA either. They're two political groups composed of individuals who have apparently regressed to the level of primitive tribes, who each point accusatory fingers at the other for the very same fallacious argument and selective blindness to evidence that they themselves constantly engage in.
I am reminded of scenes from that excellent Sean Connery and Michael Caine movie, The Man Who Would Be King, in which the adventurers encounter one riverside tribe after another, each of whom reels off an identical list of grievances and accusations about the tribe upstream.
Helen Pluckrose is also excellent on the horseshoe of Woke, left and right. It should be easy for a sane middle to emerge (classically liberal perhaps) but of course the media space acts against it.
I suspect that one reason the NYT et al. reject pieces like this is essentially the same reason that Ross Barkan gave to Jesse Singal for why he shouldn't keep writing about gender/trans issues. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYTM58SVpuM) It's some version of "Why do you care so much about this? We're talking about such a small number of people!"
Sometimes the argument is about specific areas where "almost no one" is affected or "this almost never happens": Hardly any kids get gender-affirming surgeries; only a few men are playing in women's sports (didn't John Oliver use this argument?); a small minority of male prisoners are raping women.
Aside from the thousands of people affected in those examples, there are many ways that gender mythology affects almost all of us, from laws that criminalize misgendering and "deadnaming" to the disappearance of single-sex spaces to families that are torn apart by one person's claim to have been born in the wrong body.
The most obvious way that we're all affected is by the teaching of this mythology as fact in public schools, beginning in kindergarten. Because of this ideological capture, we need to be talking about all of these issues more, not less, than is currently permitted by public officials, activists, and the MSM. Thank you, Lisa, for continuing to stand up to those bullies.
Yeah brilliantly put. It turns out reality is kind of a big deal, possibly worth paying attention to...
There will never be open discussion about this until people in our liberal bubbles wake up to the intrinsic authoritarianism of the transgender movement, which is unlikely to happen until they wake up to the intrinsic authoritarianism of what is currently labeled progressivism more broadly.
This point was just driven home for me again when I came across a set of articles written for a student newspaper by the son of a family I know, who "discovered" he was non-binary as a teenager and is now, as a young adult, on hormones and uses she/her pronouns. Besides an autobiographical piece that contained every cliché you can possibly think of how a smart, sensitive kid becomes "trans" (history of mental health issues suddenly made sense of by the "discovery" of a trans identity thanks to conversations with a non-binary friend), he also wrote articles in which he labeled any disagreement with gender identity ideology as transphobia, and put people who hold such views in the same camp as flat-earthers (and anti-vaxxers, Covid deniers, and climate deniers) not worthy of engagement, who must be censored in order to prevent the impressionable middle from being swayed by their misinformation. He also apparently initiated an unsuccessful effort to get an allegedly transphobic female professor at his college ousted from her job.
It was interesting to see such an explicit articulation of an anti-open discourse stance so closely intertwined with a trans identity, which he explicitly describes as defined by victimhood, persecution and oppression (despite his extremely privileged social status), and a way of resistance against white supremacy, heteronormativity, and - most ironically - the patriarchy. If this is what the young elite of this country thinks like, I don't have much hope.
I hope some of those press outlets will actually publish this. And I hope you never quit expressing your opinions on this - from where I’m sitting, you ‘re just making plain old common sense in a world that seems pretty damn bonkers over ‘trans”.
I was at the meeting on Wednesday, after taking a few months off. Nothing has really changed. The group still gathers outside in advance to get pumped up on their own arrogance, and then proceeds to make the same illogical, misleading and, in many cases, absolutely false statements over and over again, accusing the Board of being evil for having dared to question whether male-bodied individuals in female sports is a good idea, whether it is fair to girls or safe when it comes to contact sports. The whole tone of the activists, including the 4 on the Board, is that there is one and only one right way to think about this issue, and that the resolution that dares to question that is pure evil - not just perhaps ill-advised, not just mistaken, not just unworkable - but pure evil.
They still dance the Macarena when anyone dares to express disagreement with their position. Although I've spoken at 3 meetings before this one, I seem to have a face nobody remembers so they didn't immediately start the dance when I got up. It was once I dared to question whether it is in fact evil to speculate that it might be unfair or unsafe to have male-bodied individuals in female sports that they got up. Then, they danced with more fervor as I dared to question their belief system. I suggested that perhaps, when a same-sex attracted, or autistic, or just quirky and different child or teen expresses discomfort with their body, it might be a good idea to let that child grow up with an intact body. I acknowledged that some parents, upon hearing their child's discomfort with their sexed body, would immediately agree that the body is wrong and assure their child that it will be "fixed," and then I suggested that some loving parents might not want to chemically or surgically alter their child's growing, healthy body, but might like to let that child grow up with their body intact - and again asked if this was "evil."
I doubt I changed anyone's mind, but I felt I had to speak, if only to assure the Board majority that many District 2 parents (even though my kids graduated already) don't see Resolution 248 [which is dead in the water because the DOE will not even consider changing its insane sports policy!] as evil.
If the activists think I'm a right-wing bigot, so be it. They don't know me, so their opinion doesn't matter at all, and anyone who knows me knows exactly why I think what I think - and it has nothing to do with hatred. If any of the activists actually listened to my words, they would know I want what they say they want - to protect vulnerable kids from harm and make sure all kids feel valued and respected.
Although I agree with you that we'd all be better off creating environments in which multiple viewpoints can be heard, the pro-trans activists are so emotionally charged on the issue that their brains literally ignore rational thought and logic. The name calling, the shouting, the crying, the meltdowns, the temper tantrums are a form of (hopefully) temporary insanity. Out logic-ing insanity does not work. Until people are emotionally stable, healthy debate is impossible.
Maybe we need to explore new tools to help us cognitively-compromised humans (whose frontal cortices tend to go "Tilt!" whenever a smidgeon of adrenalyn comes on the scene) participate in debates more effectively? I'm rather excited after listening to an interview with philosopher and innovator Simon Cullen. (See "Can This AI Tool Save Campus Dialogue?" on the Heterodox Academy YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM5hewQ3Keo )
Description: "In conversation with John Tomasi, Simon explores how open inquiry is both advanced and imperiled by disagreement, and describes his academic journey from Australia to Princeton and Carnegie Mellon. Central to the discussion is ‘Sway’ an AI-powered platform developed by Simon and his team to foster rigorous, evidence-based dialogue among students on controversial topics. Sway intelligently pairs students with opposing views and acts as a “guide on the side,” scaffolding reasoning, encouraging intellectual humility, and ensuring that exchanges remain constructive and charitable. Simon shares the empirical findings from thousands of Sway-mediated dialogues, where measurable increases in students’ openness, comfort, and analytical reasoning have been observed—even on divisive subjects like gender, immigration, and the Israel-Palestine conflict."
Cullen and his colleagues have been seeing great success when using the tool to facilitate productive conversations between university students on the topic of trans: https://www.swaybeta.ai/ It's free. Check it out!
Bringing in Elliott Page, who since transition looks thin and sickly, isn't the persuasive coup the Aunties think it is.
Yeah, just as they fail to appreciate that being able to (at a glance, usually) distinguish between adult males and adult females is instinctual for the overwhelming majority of humans, we're also pretty good at clocking which of us have seriously compromised health. In classic literature, there are many references to an instinctive feeling of unease or foreboding when one character encounters another on the doorstep of death, using phrases like "shadow of death" or describing an atmosphere of doom, a chill or a darkening mood, reflecting a primal human capacity to detect mortality, akin to animals sensing danger.
.
Great piece! I wonder if Catholic school enrollment will increase as a result of this insanity.
I couldn’t see the Instagram post “trans teenager”— could you label it or describe it somewhere?
A lot of Catholic Churches and schools buy into this. In our archdiocese, there are priests with pronouns in their bios. And most of the Protestant churches around us signal support for this one way or another, some to quite extreme degrees. Religious schools can be a problem too.
Catholic priests put pronouns in their bios???? That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time!
Pater Guido Sarducci (ille, eum)
Interesting way to get females to become priests . . . .
This worries me—is there no school system untouched by this ideology?
No. Even if you can find a school that on paper does not engage in this, you frequently will have at least one or two teachers who feel they are the "safe teachers" rebelling from the inside and saving all these children. even if you could find a school where there is no one doing this, the culture is so saturated with it they will find it somewhere else
Yes, I guess it’s the *professions* more than the institutions that are the problem. Teacher education is about gender ideology, so they bring it into schools. Schools don’t fire a gender ideologue, but that one person can do damage.
And what can a parent do if some teachers are stealth cultists?
What you are doing here Lisa is so significant! Thank you for staying in it.
Oh, man... Priests with pronouns... So do these priests identify as "asexual" ?
Superb piece, Lisa. Shame on the MSM for refusing to publish it. All the more reason for all of us to share it around. I have restacked.
Excellent piece, Lisa.
Thanks for showing the receipts--that MSM refuses to cover liberals against gender insanity).
To whom you are attracted sexually is purely subjective and therefore cannot reasonably be contested by an outside observer.
Where you decide to live your life on a spectrum of superficial, stereotypical male to female attributes (and we all do) is also purely subjective and similarly cannot be questioned.
However, your biological sex reflects an objective reality which cannot be changed by your subjective personal view and futile attempts to do so can result in serious health impacts to you as well as harms to members of the sex you are impersonating (primarily women).
Others who are grounded in objective reality should never be forced to accept your subjective version of your actual biological sex.
Finally, it's past time for the LGB community to separate themselves from the trans activists who are trying to take away the rights of women to fairness in sports and to privacy and safety in their restrooms, locker rooms and prisons. They also advocate for the chemical and surgical mutilation of children many of whom would grow up gay.
Their actions are evil and the
understandable negative reaction to the harm they are causing is spilling over to innocent people who are just going about their business, marrying and leading their lives.
Homeschooling is on the rise in America! This is @ least a BIG Reason WHY?
Some reporters at the New York Times are working on a story about bans on gender-affirming care, where it came from, and the political fight around it. They put out a request this morning on the Daily podcast for kids or parents with direct experience with gender-affirming care. They want people with direct-experience stories to send voice memos to genderstory@nytimes.com. I think they need to hear from us.
Thank you, Lisa. I hope your piece makes it into the paper. I didn’t quite get the “trans teenager” reference. I guess it just illustrates the absurdity of the protesters. I am so embarrassed that we libs are giving these loud nonsensical arguments such a big platform.
Thank you, well written and i hope many read it