People are always surprised when I tell them that the effects of testosterone are irreversible. But I've been most successful in starting, as you did, with, "Isn't is sexist to tell gender non-conforming girls that they must really be boys?"
Yes! I don't understand why the trans advocates put "gender nonconforming" under the trans umbrella. It implies that if you defy gender expectations, you must be in a different category from others of your sex. This seems like the least progressive attitude a person could have.
They put everyone they can under that umbrella, including LGB, which makes this L awfully angry, given the essential homophobia and misogyny that underlie gender ideology. They hope to leverage by association the good will and sympathy of unthinking progressives, who obviously are legion.
I second, third and fourth this, as a 74 year old L. Also, I see below the convo mentioning Kathleen Stock. Without wishing to take anything away from the hard work so many are doing stateside, I have to say it was an unexpected thrill to see a proud and out lesbian getting such traction. I loved the photo of her, in her jeans and sunglasses, surrounded by security (all shorter than she is), walking, nay striding, into the Oxford Union event. I kept thinking, too, isn’t she a very cool role model for young women who may actually be same-sex attracted? Wouldn’t that be a nice change from what is going on now?
It would, indeed. Stock didn't ask for this role , but she has risen to the challenge and embodied it with great intelligence, courage and common sense. ("This is bonkers," is, I think my favorite Stockism.) I delight in her barely veiled impatience in debate (when it rises to that) with lessers, which is pretty much everyone else. She is unfailingly respectful, but one can tell it sometimes takes effort. :)
Yes, this is the American Psychological Association's totally infuriating definition of transgender:
"Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth. Gender identity refers to a person’s internal sense of being male, female or something else; gender expression refers to the way a person communicates gender identity to others through behavior, clothing, hairstyles, voice or body characteristics."
Just madness. I can't think of a more dubious basis for policy and law (never mind medical and surgical intervention) than an individual's "internal sense of being male, female or something else." Widespread buy-in to this solipsistic, disembodied craziness -- even by organizations responsible for knowing better -- is the best evidence I've yet seen that humans will bring about their own ruin sooner rather than later. At least the animals can't be harmed by this version of human madness, though they remain in peril from too many others.
We lesbians are not at all an afterthought for the 80% of males who claim to be women, who are heterosexual and who claim to be lesbians. These males pressure young and otherwise emotionally/mentally vulnerable lesbians to "date" them. "Date" is of course a euphemism for have sex with them. These men emotionally coerce some women into having sex with them by saying to not do so means those women are "tranphobic", "hateful" and "bigoted". Women who succumb end up being devastated. There is already a published collection of personal statements and poems by such women entitled "You Told Me You Were Different", ISBN 978-1-954625-01-3
The old term for this was "corrective rape." It seems as if lesbians, no less than many other women, are afflicted with a pathological need to be "inclusive" to their own profound detriment. Note to women, gay and straight: Be less nice. Be willing to be disliked.
So true. In pants or dresses, it's still men asserting their desires over women's rights. Anyone else notice that the biological women (identifying as men) in this movement are harming no one but themselves? Like other women, they seem to become invisible when male interests are being argued.
Probably for the most part. But trans men (natal females) are the reason we have started hearing terms like "People with vaginas" and "People who menstruate," and "Men can have babies too!" I will add that it is quite possible, perhaps even likely, that it's not primarily actual trans men insisting that we omit the word "woman" from our speech and writing, but activist allies who just can't see/ don't care how insulting some of that language can be. I understand inclusivity, but if you're a trans man who felt so uncomfortable living as a woman that you want to live as a trans man, but then do the most literally female thing a person can do, and choose to give birth to a baby - I struggle very hard to understand this.
You may not understand that some of the male fetishists actually believe they are women. Some claim they have 'period' pain and real 'vaginas' and I know of a couple of male larpers who are taking hormone cocktails so they can moob ('breast') feed their infants. The delusion can be quite strong.
Kara Dansky. Abigail Shrier. Not lesbians, but feminists who are well aware of what is happening to lesbians and include us in their writing. Membership in Women's Liberation Front (WoLF) -- fighting on every legal front against gender ideology and for females -- is 40 percent lesbian, so we have not been forgotten (though I'm all in favor of our own Kathleen Stock :)).
There are plenty of lesbians fighting the 'trans' lunacy but most less high-profile than Dansky and Shrier. And let's remember that lesbians were the 'canaries in the coal mine' re the 'trans' issue as Janice Raymond's book, The Transsexual Empire was published in 1979. And lesbians were calling out the male fetishists before that.
Elizabeth Hungerford and Cathy Brennan used to be, though they lost their shit in various ways after WOLF joined forces with conservative women to form Hands Across the Aisle. O.o
Cathy Brennan ended up yelling at all the feminists protesting against gender ideology at the SCOTUS case: "Homophobes!" Sigh.
I think the left needs more voices like yours, clearly pointing out that gender ideology is NOT a progressive continuation of the idea that strict gender roles and gender stereotyping are regressive- instead, it’s directly in contradiction to those ideas. My sense is that the type of people you describe (sounds like my social circle!) see the evolution of progressive ideas in the realm of “gender” as following a smooth curve from “Free to Be You and Me” to “Protect Trans Kids” without realizing that “Protect Trans Kids”, when it means both reifying the category “trans kid” and supporting affirmation-only and a medicalized pathway, is actually a slogan directly in opposition to the idea that kids should be free to be themselves whether they are female or male.
This contradiction needs to be repeatedly pointed out by people that progressives trust. I don’t see any other way out of this mess in the US.
So true! We should just blast the little exchange in that album where Marlo Thomas and Mel Brooks portray babies. Funny enough Mel is the one pushing Marlo to think she is a boy, and assert he is a girl (ha!). And then, guess what, they get their diapers changed, and reality is declared, based on what’s down there. Maybe we can go back to subliminal messages at movie theaters?! (-;
We need to parse out gender non-conformity from medicalization. A distant relative recently felt compelled to tell my sister to tell me that I should be happy my teenage daughter wants to transition. She said this for the sole reason that my daughter came to a party with “male” clothes and short hair. As it is, she is right about my daughter’s intentions, but she made that leap based solely on appearance. (And the funny part with my daughter is that her “non-conforming” behavior followed her trans-identity, not the other way around.)!! Also, this distant relative told a story of her husband’s cousin, who transitioned as an adult and is so very happy. Part of that story was how the cousin was previously ridiculed by the family for wearing a tux to a wedding - but now the cousin is happy. Why did the cousin have to medicalize and take on a new “male identity” to be accepted for wearing a tux? Why not just accept gender non-conformity w/o the need to re-label people and medically alter their appearance? And why not be extremely cautious about medical interventions on young, healthy bodies? Would any of these people be happy for young people to medically interfere with their healthy bodies under any other circumstances? These are two salient points. Accept non-conformity and be extremely wary of medical interventions!!
Yes, regarding the ridicule for wearing a tux... if you identify as trans, NO ONE can ridicule you. The protections for 'trans' people come out in full force. Trans is a shield that protects you from bullying. But you have to accept this ideology and believe you are the opposite sex to claim that shield.
I would love anyone on the left to look seriously at how regressive the majority of what is being espoused as “proof” of a person’s gender identity is. When you’re saying a persons interests in more or less feminine/masculine things are a justification for them being in the wrong body and needing medical intervention, you’re the one creating a rigid gender binary with inescapable stereotypes.
I would also like to see some of the misogyny and homophobia that is bubbling under the surface of most of the trans activist dialogue to be challenged.
I think that the most important thing about this”issue” is that it is one of authoritarianism. People have been fired for” misgendering “ someone. Unlike the former gay movement ( “former, because it has changed) the trans ideology demands conformity with their beliefs, which go against all truth! We all know that men cannot be women. Denying biology won’t make biology disappear, just as denying that the earth is round won’t make it flat!
The main thing to understand about this ideology is the denial of science ,of truth and the bullying of the rest of society.
So much bullying! Not only at the social media level and the political discourse, but the kids that get involved in this become so rude - to each other and those around them - provoking, taunting, yelling, swearing. It’s bad.
They think that because they believe the "right things," that automatically makes them good people, and I assume they think it's okay to behave however they want as long as it is in defense of their cause.
For me, the key point is that if someone (especially a teenage girl) didn’t like their body in any other way, we would encourage them to love and accept themselves as they are, but for some reason if they don’t like themselves in this one specific way people believe it means they were born in the wrong body and need to become someone else. And thinking about who benefits from convincing teenagers of this?
instead we’re generalizing ALL pubescent girls’ anxiety and body anxiety as gender dysphoria.
it’s all too common that transitioning is pushed when girls present with 1) mental health issues, 2) being bullied at school, 3) are victims of sexual abuse, or 4) are simply tomboys and girls whose bodies aren’t considered this week’s ideal form.
I saw someone make some really good points about teenage girls and eating disorders, and how much some of this mirrors that. There are some girls relating to the boy body because they aspire to the boy body. Not a *man's* body, but a boy body - slim, curveless, smooth, safe. I completely see this.
A lot of these girls are also on the autism spectrum. They never felt like they fitted in and the explanation given to them is that they are really boys. Evil!
Very true. I can’t help but think what an incredibly misogynistic cult this is - to actively work to make girls believe that their female body parts are “wrong” and that the answer, the cure, is to become a man. That’s not to say that it is less evil for boys to be boondoggled into transing to female.
I was expelled from a socialist organization over this stuff. During my last foray into an online space with that crew, I think I got most traction with the angle that the trans stuff is actually right wing. Possible iterations for a liberal or left crowd:
-it embraces regressive gender stereotypes
-it embraces the most reactionary stereotypes of what a man and a woman are allowed to be
-it uses progressive language to physically impose regressive stereotypes on gender non-conforming kids
-it uses progressive language to obscure that it's actually embracing the most regressive gender stereotypes
-it rolls back the clock on all the progress the feminist and gay rights movements have made letting people be who they are
Hmm, after writing those down, i think i like the ones that say "it uses progressive language" bc it suggests progressive rhetoric doesn't mean progressive policy, and that there's some manipulation of well-intentioned people (aka our audience) going on.
Also, it's a religion. Most people on the leftish end of things are deeply committed to separation of church and state. Once "the LGBTQIA2S+ community" is properly identified as a totalitarian religion, many things look different.
For example, secretly transing kids at school is NOT analogous to keeping confidentiality for a gay kid. It's analogous to baptism.
Transition has never cured gender dysphoria it’s a open secret in Transgender communities. There’s a lot of open secrets within the transgender community regarding the surgeries. Talk about the Heaven’s Gate cult show them clips of Marci bowers talking about how none of her adolescent patients gain any sexual function
Based on personal experiences with conversations I’ve had with liberal friends (and I’ve always identified as liberal although I don’t know what I am anymore since I don’t seem to fit anywhere), these are the points that have landed with the same “aha” you are describing:
1) That there is a large body of research showing most gender dysphoric children - even the most insistent and consistent - outgrow their dysphoria in puberty, and that it’s the process of puberty itself that allows them to sort it out. A very liberal friend of mine genuinely believed that childhood dysphoria always equaled a trans adult and she said she’d never read that most kids outgrew it. I showed her the research and she said it definitely affected her thinking on this issue.
2) that there is not any careful evaluation or assessment in all this and that there is no model for telling a child “no” no matter how glaringly obvious it is that the child should not be transitioned. This is the biggest misconception I see in liberals who don’t hold extreme beliefs. They genuinely believe that if a child (or even an adult) is being transitioned, it’s because there has been very careful assessment done and the child has been determined “truly transgender” and the children who are going through a phase or experimenting or are truly psychologically unwell would never actually be transitioned (therefore it’s harmless to go along with make and pronoun changes for those children). What we need to show is that there’s NOT good assessment or differential diagnosis happening. However, this is harder to do than you’d think because it generally requires the person to personally know a child who is being pushed into transition who obviously should not. When a liberal friend sees that (or obvious social contagion) firsthand, then I see them admitting their doubts. Stories like the details of patients at Tavistock or the St Louis pediatric gender clinic don’t seem to have the same impact because they are too distant and too depersonalized or too easily brushed aside as “transphobic reporting” to have much effect.
You didn’t ask this question, but I’ll add what has NOT worked in conversations that you think would.
1) I’ve never had a liberal friend moved by trying to discuss detransitioners. I don’t think it’s a lack of compassion. I think it’s that they have already been convinced they are vanishingly rats and they also don’t have any mental concept of what kind of problems they face, so it’s not a good entry point. (This is of course really terrible for detransitioners)
2) I’ve never had any liberal friend moved by the sports or prisons issue. It doesn’t work as a point of engagement because they usually have already decided it’s either not an issue or a complication within a bigger issue they can live with.
3) similar to the sports/prison issue: I’ve never had any friend shift their thinking by talking about the spike among teen girls. I have found that almost every liberal person I’ve talked to agrees there’s a social contagion among teen girls and that it’s concerning. But it doesn’t seem to move them to speak up about their concerns, change their voting, or put any pressure at all on elected officials or what’s being taught in schools. I think they assume whatever the issue is with those girls will get worked out on its own or it’s something that’s not their problem, something separate from the “real” trans issues and the “real” trans kids they’re protecting.
I have experienced this, but different aspects of the issue get through to people based on their connection to it. And, generally people want to be “kind”. It’s not kind to tell a child they are different from themselves (their body). Not kind. It’s cruel.
I had a friend, fairly left, and after a year of conversations, what has started to break through was that I am two people removed from a girl who has had a double mastectomy at age 13.
Her reaction was to blame the parents. And, I pushed back, how it could all the responsibility rest with parents given the approach of major institutions? She didn’t have an answer, but I know she will still be thinking on it. All that to say is, some things connects with each person and it’s not always clear.
That's true b/c I shocked one woman when I mentioned the prison situ and another when I told her that most LGBs don't support 'trans' and that the primary drivers of the 'trans' movement are heterosexual, cross-dresser males w/ an erotic fixation--they thought it was 'gay 2.0.' Conflation, obfuscation, and confusion is all part of the strategy, as is stealth and silencing anyone who challenges the 'transgender' ideology/movement.
These are such interesting points and comments. In some sense, it also speaks to how individual and idiosyncratic breakthroughs can be. For me, sports has been a pretty good “in,” as haves the change in the cohort to a large number of girls. (I also did have one person watch some of the detrans narratives, and it had a lot of impact. Getting the folks I am generally speaking with to watch--let alone read--anything, though, is really tough. Mostly folks, if willing to listen at all, want a two sentence summary.
Your first 2) is so key and the most important thing to clarify IMO. People unquestioningly accept that "trans kids" is a coherent category, and that providers can tell which kids are truly transgender and are doing some kind of differential diagnosis. The Tavistock reporting and testimony out of the Texas hearing makes it clear that this isn't happening.
This is exactly the question I keep coming back to in my own mind- how can we have accepted that bodies can be wrong? Bodies just are... and minds are so often wrong! Lisa, this is the absolute heart of the whole thing, I think. And asking them to consider what it means to send that message to your daughter is perfect. I have tried this, but my lefty friends believe I no longer have a daughter because she says she is my son. Luckily I have a few friends who are in the confused center with me and understand my concerns. Thank you once again for helping me feel way less alone!
One thing to keep in mind: mermaids (uk) is now distancing themselves from the phrase "born in the wrong body." They explain that it was helpful in the past to try to explain the 'trans' person's experience, but they claim they did not and do not really believe that. We see this kind of linguistic ninja move repeatedly ("Language is evolving all the time"). When we point out the fallacy of a concept in gender ideology, they will argue around it and say that's not what they really meant.
Is "changing your sex," or "you could be a boy or a girl, no one knows," or "assigned at birth" a better focus than the phrase "born in the wrong body" perhaps better because it is harder to wiggle out of these statements? I'm not sure. But I think this is a really important question to focus on. What one point could we highlight?
As usual, Lisa, you seem to be reading my mind because I have just been struggling again with the question -- how can I peak people? How can I show this?
The real question you are asking here is, “How can we get people to think?” That’s a tough one.
When I first became aware of the issue, I (naively) imagined that this could be done through reductio ad absurdum. If the ideology leads us to perform experimental medical treatments on children, then isn’t there something wrong with the ideology? Or if it leads us to put rapists in women’s prisons? Or if it leads us to let men, who have an obvious biological advantage, to compete in women’s sports?
Clearly, this doesn’t work. Reductio ad absurdum only works with people who are predisposed to think. So the question is, “Why are people unwilling to think?”
Part of it is tribalism. This is what my side “thinks,” so this is what I think. (After a difficult conversation with a feminist friend of mine, who really was refusing to see the contradictions, she admitted to me that her problem was that she lived in Portland. A brief moment of unintentional honesty!)
Another part is the (bizarrely) persistent belief in the integrity of the media. In my experience as a political researcher, if you try to tell people something that is scandalous, people have a response -- though it is usually unspoken -- that in effect says, if what you are telling me is true, it would be reported. In the case of your friends, by, say, the NY Times, which is almost definitionally assumed to be a source of authoritative information (if The NY Times would turn on a dime on this issue, a lot of minds would quickly change, but not because they are thinking).
A third part is the sheer horror of it. People don’t really want to have to think about living in a society that is, in effect, mutilating its children, or simply letting men rape women in prison. This is a powerful disincentive to thinking.
So, back to the question. How do we get people to think? I don’t think it involves hammering one essential point. If I were in denial about something (speaking from bitter experience here), it wouldn’t work for me.
What has worked to get me to think were the very few teachers I had who used the Socratic method. So rather than hammering points, we have to ask the right questions, not with force but humility.
Leor Sapir recently commented in Benjamin Boyce’s podcast that in twenty minutes or so he could get a group of liberals to see that there was a problem with child transition. But they all persisted to believe that there really was such a thing as a trans child.
But what does that mean, really? I think that’s at the heart of of all the contradictions that lead to the reductio ad absurdums that should make people think, but don’t. I think it’s just a belief, a quasi-religious belief. But we are not going to get anywhere by asserting that.
So we need to ask, sincerely, with genuine curiosity. What do you mean when you say a child is born in the wrong body? What do you mean when you say a child is trans?
Wow, Daniel -- you and I were apparently typing at the same time. My comment below reads like a reductio of yours, but it was original when I wrote it!
Yes Daniel and Jen have hit the nail on the head. There is a good deal of tribalism involved. People are people and the tendency to simply sway toward the group we are affiliated with is a very powerful thing. And addressing the root - what does it mean to be a trans child is probably the method to go with. There is, of course, no scientific proof of such a thing. So how can we have a treatment or cure for something that is not real?
The Left does not admit that main stream (left leaning) media follows the totalitarian guidelines of a webpage for reporting called "The Trans Journalists Association Style Guide" which has no sources or persons with journalistic expertise named as the origin of this document. Men like my crossdressing ex-husband, who constantly falsely claims to be 'mother' to our two sons and constantly claims he's been the target of "micro-aggressions," (but is an executive in his tech firm for 20 years now) are the ones who wrote up instructions not to report on detransitioners ("there are so few") and not to report on botched surgeries (or deaths, such as in the Dutch Ferring Pharma funded studies (De Vries, et al, 2014) and not to ever discuss the ex-wives and children's mental anguish and grief. Also, never, ever report on crimes by female-identifying men, "because trans are overrepresented in the prison population." It is a cult, it must be exposed as a cult, and the links to pornography and prostitution, I'm finding out from former "escorts" are heavily woven into this world, as is the use of cocaine backstage at drag shows.
Thanks for this. Helen Joyce writes about the transactivists' control of the media in her book Trans. It is true that every time a murder is committed by a trans identified man, it either isn't reported by the mainstream media, or the murderer is referred to as a woman and then the reporting immediately stops (Nikki Secondino, for example). There is no follow-up reporting because of the pesky issue of violent male criminals being housed in women's prisons, which needs to stay out of the news.
EG, Dana Rivers, who killed 2 lesbians and their adopted son (the son and one woman were persons of color) after harassing them at the women's music festival, MichFest. He's making an appeal based on mental illness. Convicted, reported only in local newspapers in deep blue California.
This post fired me up - and everyone's comments elicit a "YESSSSSS!" from me! Yesterday I had a meeting with an executive director of a large, deeply impactful community organization. He is very liberal, extremely intelligent, and loves thinking and leading outside the box. I told him in 5 minutes what is going on with the gender stuff and my stance (critical, obviously) on it. He was shocked, especially when I told him about how harmful puberty blockers etc are to a person's long-term sexual health & fertility, among other things. He had had no idea. I truly think the main issue is that the majority of smart, well-meaning people HAVE NO IDEA about everything that you, Lisa, and your brilliant, courageous peers write and talk about on this subject. Most people think it's a fringe issue, that you're either an ally or a bigot, and they have not been curious enough to step outside their NY Times/Washington Post newsfeed. Also, if they are "privileged" they probably have friends and/or family members who now identify somewhere on the LGBTQ (especially TQ) spectrum, so they don't dare consider information that would make them feel like they aren't being supportive.
So, I think what the "allies" need to understand is 1) they are being manipulated as the information they are receiving is not scientific and it's causing kids harm; 2) in a nutshell why Sweden and UK have abruptly changed their policies due to having data; 3) this is yet another area that social media has had a deep impact on our youth's mental health and on our culture.
My meeting yesterday with the CEO also included the founder of another huge national organization. The founder, who is extremely liberal, and a deeply religious Christian, on another topic (I didn't talk to him about the gender stuff - his organization helps underserved youth), said, "In the 70s, we were already seeing the destruction of the connections with the extended family, as well as the deconstruction of religion and faith. I predicted that we would next see the destruction of the nuclear family. In the US, leaders only think in terms of 2, 4 or 5 year plans. I always think long-term. Unfortunately, I was right. In a conversation with Hillary Clinton, I told her, you're right - it takes a village to raise a child, but the village is being destroyed." As he was talking, I was struck by his wisdom and how the gender thing isn't a fringe issue - it has extremely wide, long-range ramifications. If others could only see this, and not be so focused on extreme attempts to stop it, I think more people on the Left will see based on common sense, what this is all about.
yes x 1000! Telling progressives they are being manipulated tends to get them to pay attention. As a progressive (or a former progressive, depending on how we define this now), in a university, I see the effects of this holier-than-thou attitude daily. It squarely posits conservatives as idiots who have yet to see the truth. When the tables are turned, it can be very unsettling -- and I think it can be a very effective tactic. When I've explained gender ideology from a "follow the money" perspective, progressives are pissed off to have been misled and manipulated.
Love this! Brava! In my own experience, I can confirm that there are a lot of “smart, well-meaning people [who] HAVE NO IDEA about everything that you, Lisa, and your brilliant, courageous peers write and talk about on this subject.” Once you can get into a conversation and break that barrier, you can start to make headway. Then, the problem is, how to connect the dots to actions individuals are willing and able to do.
Would showing graphic depictions of teenaged girls w/ mastectomy scars or the forearm that has been stripped of skin and subcutaneous tissue for phalloplasty be shocking enough to get someone's attention?
Probably not the place to start with friends and neighbors, but I would sure like for the Bidens and others in D leadership to be faced directly with the consequences of what they are supporting.
Makes me wonder if Biden has a clue what he is supporting or if he has a bunch of 'trans' ideologues around him who are not forthcoming about the implications of the 'trans' nonsense.
I have to think Rachel Levine is constantly whispering in his ear. Who else would have proposed he sit down with that grifter Mulvaney, eg? Not that any of this lets Biden off the hook.
And as Malcom Clark said during one of the Genspect Bigger Picture Conference in Killarney, going through puberty allowed him to develop mentally and grow physically out of his tortured prepubescent self. Puberty blockers effectively trap kids in their most awkward, uncomfortable phase of their lives. Why would you want to do that?
The kids making these decisions, or allowing their parents to make the decisions for them, do not have fully developed brains. They are probably 10 years from full development in the part of their brain that allows them to consider consequences, to prioritize considerations, even think into the future. What is the typical “time horizon” of a 15-year-old in terms of future thinking? Now subtract three years for any sort of Neuro divergence that affects executive functioning. If 15-year-old is making decisions with the brain development and time horizon of a 12-year-old. They can maybe see a week into the future and plan for a week into the future.
There is a reason why you cannot rent a car until you’re 25. Why your rates on car insurance go down at the age of 25. Those numbers are all looked at by actuaries and the numbers don’t lie. The numbers reflect the brain development that happens around age 25.
But letting kids make decisions about the rest of their lives with this brain development is ok?!
The example you gave of your gender nonconforming daughter, who they all knew, was deploying visual persuasion. Citing medical reports is not. Try using more visual descriptions and depictions.
This is such a good point. I recall being trained to talk to people about climate change, and needing both a tangible metaphor and the grace to recognize that the problem is overwhelming and substantial. Along side it has to have positive actions, when the reality has sunk in.
Grace is key. People don't, generally, like being told they are doing something or believe something wrong, but a well crafted metaphor can persuade people. This is the premise behind Win Bigly by Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams. https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780735219717
Want to second your observation “alongside it has to have positive actions.” I remember, way back when, a volunteer coordinator who said, like a mantra, “people need things to do!” At first I disparaged it (and of course the things to do have to have a chance to be productive, not make work), but I have come to see that it is really hard for most of us to recognize something is truly awful, but not know what we can possibly do about it--or feel the problem is so big, how can doing a small thing, which is all I can manage, make any difference? That same volunteer coordinator answered that with “many hands make light work.” She was so good at what she did: two messages in that, first, here’s a small thing to try; second, don’t feel you are doing too little, just do what you can.
That the trans ideology is most harmful to gay people (and mostly to lesbians). So many people on the left believe that trans is the natural progression of the gay rights movement that many of us really believe in and fought for. Trans and gay are not only NOT the same-trans ideology is in fact very homophobic and harming an entire generation of gay kids.
At the recent Genspect conference about 'trans' in Ireland Stella O'Malley was asked what was the most important thing she wanted people to take from the conference and she said: 'That 'trans' is not about being gay.'
And many of the LGB want absolutely nothing to do with the TQ! And please follow the money as laid out by Jennifer Bilek here: https://youtu.be/tLXdoqXbC6k
People are always surprised when I tell them that the effects of testosterone are irreversible. But I've been most successful in starting, as you did, with, "Isn't is sexist to tell gender non-conforming girls that they must really be boys?"
Yes! I don't understand why the trans advocates put "gender nonconforming" under the trans umbrella. It implies that if you defy gender expectations, you must be in a different category from others of your sex. This seems like the least progressive attitude a person could have.
They put everyone they can under that umbrella, including LGB, which makes this L awfully angry, given the essential homophobia and misogyny that underlie gender ideology. They hope to leverage by association the good will and sympathy of unthinking progressives, who obviously are legion.
I second, third and fourth this, as a 74 year old L. Also, I see below the convo mentioning Kathleen Stock. Without wishing to take anything away from the hard work so many are doing stateside, I have to say it was an unexpected thrill to see a proud and out lesbian getting such traction. I loved the photo of her, in her jeans and sunglasses, surrounded by security (all shorter than she is), walking, nay striding, into the Oxford Union event. I kept thinking, too, isn’t she a very cool role model for young women who may actually be same-sex attracted? Wouldn’t that be a nice change from what is going on now?
It would, indeed. Stock didn't ask for this role , but she has risen to the challenge and embodied it with great intelligence, courage and common sense. ("This is bonkers," is, I think my favorite Stockism.) I delight in her barely veiled impatience in debate (when it rises to that) with lessers, which is pretty much everyone else. She is unfailingly respectful, but one can tell it sometimes takes effort. :)
Susan, she would be an awesome and powerful role model for young women!!!!!! Wish we could make it so!
Working on it, in my own tiny, idiosyncratic way: https://prufrocksdilemma.wordpress.com/2023/05/31/taking-stock/
I love this, Susan! Thank you!!!
Yes, this is the American Psychological Association's totally infuriating definition of transgender:
"Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth. Gender identity refers to a person’s internal sense of being male, female or something else; gender expression refers to the way a person communicates gender identity to others through behavior, clothing, hairstyles, voice or body characteristics."
Just madness. I can't think of a more dubious basis for policy and law (never mind medical and surgical intervention) than an individual's "internal sense of being male, female or something else." Widespread buy-in to this solipsistic, disembodied craziness -- even by organizations responsible for knowing better -- is the best evidence I've yet seen that humans will bring about their own ruin sooner rather than later. At least the animals can't be harmed by this version of human madness, though they remain in peril from too many others.
We lesbians are not at all an afterthought for the 80% of males who claim to be women, who are heterosexual and who claim to be lesbians. These males pressure young and otherwise emotionally/mentally vulnerable lesbians to "date" them. "Date" is of course a euphemism for have sex with them. These men emotionally coerce some women into having sex with them by saying to not do so means those women are "tranphobic", "hateful" and "bigoted". Women who succumb end up being devastated. There is already a published collection of personal statements and poems by such women entitled "You Told Me You Were Different", ISBN 978-1-954625-01-3
Available from the publisher: https://uglytruths.gumroad.com/l/youtoldme
The old term for this was "corrective rape." It seems as if lesbians, no less than many other women, are afflicted with a pathological need to be "inclusive" to their own profound detriment. Note to women, gay and straight: Be less nice. Be willing to be disliked.
So true. In pants or dresses, it's still men asserting their desires over women's rights. Anyone else notice that the biological women (identifying as men) in this movement are harming no one but themselves? Like other women, they seem to become invisible when male interests are being argued.
Probably for the most part. But trans men (natal females) are the reason we have started hearing terms like "People with vaginas" and "People who menstruate," and "Men can have babies too!" I will add that it is quite possible, perhaps even likely, that it's not primarily actual trans men insisting that we omit the word "woman" from our speech and writing, but activist allies who just can't see/ don't care how insulting some of that language can be. I understand inclusivity, but if you're a trans man who felt so uncomfortable living as a woman that you want to live as a trans man, but then do the most literally female thing a person can do, and choose to give birth to a baby - I struggle very hard to understand this.
You may not understand that some of the male fetishists actually believe they are women. Some claim they have 'period' pain and real 'vaginas' and I know of a couple of male larpers who are taking hormone cocktails so they can moob ('breast') feed their infants. The delusion can be quite strong.
Yes! Who is our American Kathleen Stock?
Kara Dansky. Abigail Shrier. Not lesbians, but feminists who are well aware of what is happening to lesbians and include us in their writing. Membership in Women's Liberation Front (WoLF) -- fighting on every legal front against gender ideology and for females -- is 40 percent lesbian, so we have not been forgotten (though I'm all in favor of our own Kathleen Stock :)).
There are plenty of lesbians fighting the 'trans' lunacy but most less high-profile than Dansky and Shrier. And let's remember that lesbians were the 'canaries in the coal mine' re the 'trans' issue as Janice Raymond's book, The Transsexual Empire was published in 1979. And lesbians were calling out the male fetishists before that.
Exactly! These women make a huge difference. I joined WoLF after learning about Kara Dansky. I encourage women to look into this group!
Elizabeth Hungerford and Cathy Brennan used to be, though they lost their shit in various ways after WOLF joined forces with conservative women to form Hands Across the Aisle. O.o
Cathy Brennan ended up yelling at all the feminists protesting against gender ideology at the SCOTUS case: "Homophobes!" Sigh.
Male fetishists co-opting every one they can, it is a parasitic movement.
I think the left needs more voices like yours, clearly pointing out that gender ideology is NOT a progressive continuation of the idea that strict gender roles and gender stereotyping are regressive- instead, it’s directly in contradiction to those ideas. My sense is that the type of people you describe (sounds like my social circle!) see the evolution of progressive ideas in the realm of “gender” as following a smooth curve from “Free to Be You and Me” to “Protect Trans Kids” without realizing that “Protect Trans Kids”, when it means both reifying the category “trans kid” and supporting affirmation-only and a medicalized pathway, is actually a slogan directly in opposition to the idea that kids should be free to be themselves whether they are female or male.
This contradiction needs to be repeatedly pointed out by people that progressives trust. I don’t see any other way out of this mess in the US.
I hope that makes sense, it’s early!
"free to be you and me" never meant this!
So true! We should just blast the little exchange in that album where Marlo Thomas and Mel Brooks portray babies. Funny enough Mel is the one pushing Marlo to think she is a boy, and assert he is a girl (ha!). And then, guess what, they get their diapers changed, and reality is declared, based on what’s down there. Maybe we can go back to subliminal messages at movie theaters?! (-;
In case anyone has no idea what this is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUpLiJfV4_A
You said this thought better than I did. Thanks.
We need to parse out gender non-conformity from medicalization. A distant relative recently felt compelled to tell my sister to tell me that I should be happy my teenage daughter wants to transition. She said this for the sole reason that my daughter came to a party with “male” clothes and short hair. As it is, she is right about my daughter’s intentions, but she made that leap based solely on appearance. (And the funny part with my daughter is that her “non-conforming” behavior followed her trans-identity, not the other way around.)!! Also, this distant relative told a story of her husband’s cousin, who transitioned as an adult and is so very happy. Part of that story was how the cousin was previously ridiculed by the family for wearing a tux to a wedding - but now the cousin is happy. Why did the cousin have to medicalize and take on a new “male identity” to be accepted for wearing a tux? Why not just accept gender non-conformity w/o the need to re-label people and medically alter their appearance? And why not be extremely cautious about medical interventions on young, healthy bodies? Would any of these people be happy for young people to medically interfere with their healthy bodies under any other circumstances? These are two salient points. Accept non-conformity and be extremely wary of medical interventions!!
Yes, regarding the ridicule for wearing a tux... if you identify as trans, NO ONE can ridicule you. The protections for 'trans' people come out in full force. Trans is a shield that protects you from bullying. But you have to accept this ideology and believe you are the opposite sex to claim that shield.
I would love anyone on the left to look seriously at how regressive the majority of what is being espoused as “proof” of a person’s gender identity is. When you’re saying a persons interests in more or less feminine/masculine things are a justification for them being in the wrong body and needing medical intervention, you’re the one creating a rigid gender binary with inescapable stereotypes.
I would also like to see some of the misogyny and homophobia that is bubbling under the surface of most of the trans activist dialogue to be challenged.
Agree! So much misogyny and homophobia underlying this. I think there is a large majority that doesn’t care what “those” people do, it’s not “them”.
I think that the most important thing about this”issue” is that it is one of authoritarianism. People have been fired for” misgendering “ someone. Unlike the former gay movement ( “former, because it has changed) the trans ideology demands conformity with their beliefs, which go against all truth! We all know that men cannot be women. Denying biology won’t make biology disappear, just as denying that the earth is round won’t make it flat!
The main thing to understand about this ideology is the denial of science ,of truth and the bullying of the rest of society.
The bullying part seems the most important to break through.
So much bullying! Not only at the social media level and the political discourse, but the kids that get involved in this become so rude - to each other and those around them - provoking, taunting, yelling, swearing. It’s bad.
They think that because they believe the "right things," that automatically makes them good people, and I assume they think it's okay to behave however they want as long as it is in defense of their cause.
For me, the key point is that if someone (especially a teenage girl) didn’t like their body in any other way, we would encourage them to love and accept themselves as they are, but for some reason if they don’t like themselves in this one specific way people believe it means they were born in the wrong body and need to become someone else. And thinking about who benefits from convincing teenagers of this?
instead we’re generalizing ALL pubescent girls’ anxiety and body anxiety as gender dysphoria.
it’s all too common that transitioning is pushed when girls present with 1) mental health issues, 2) being bullied at school, 3) are victims of sexual abuse, or 4) are simply tomboys and girls whose bodies aren’t considered this week’s ideal form.
I saw someone make some really good points about teenage girls and eating disorders, and how much some of this mirrors that. There are some girls relating to the boy body because they aspire to the boy body. Not a *man's* body, but a boy body - slim, curveless, smooth, safe. I completely see this.
A lot of these girls are also on the autism spectrum. They never felt like they fitted in and the explanation given to them is that they are really boys. Evil!
Very true. I can’t help but think what an incredibly misogynistic cult this is - to actively work to make girls believe that their female body parts are “wrong” and that the answer, the cure, is to become a man. That’s not to say that it is less evil for boys to be boondoggled into transing to female.
Follow the money! There are definitely some people benefiting.
https://youtu.be/tLXdoqXbC6k
I was expelled from a socialist organization over this stuff. During my last foray into an online space with that crew, I think I got most traction with the angle that the trans stuff is actually right wing. Possible iterations for a liberal or left crowd:
-it embraces regressive gender stereotypes
-it embraces the most reactionary stereotypes of what a man and a woman are allowed to be
-it uses progressive language to physically impose regressive stereotypes on gender non-conforming kids
-it uses progressive language to obscure that it's actually embracing the most regressive gender stereotypes
-it rolls back the clock on all the progress the feminist and gay rights movements have made letting people be who they are
Hmm, after writing those down, i think i like the ones that say "it uses progressive language" bc it suggests progressive rhetoric doesn't mean progressive policy, and that there's some manipulation of well-intentioned people (aka our audience) going on.
Great points!
Also, it's a religion. Most people on the leftish end of things are deeply committed to separation of church and state. Once "the LGBTQIA2S+ community" is properly identified as a totalitarian religion, many things look different.
For example, secretly transing kids at school is NOT analogous to keeping confidentiality for a gay kid. It's analogous to baptism.
Transition has never cured gender dysphoria it’s a open secret in Transgender communities. There’s a lot of open secrets within the transgender community regarding the surgeries. Talk about the Heaven’s Gate cult show them clips of Marci bowers talking about how none of her adolescent patients gain any sexual function
Based on personal experiences with conversations I’ve had with liberal friends (and I’ve always identified as liberal although I don’t know what I am anymore since I don’t seem to fit anywhere), these are the points that have landed with the same “aha” you are describing:
1) That there is a large body of research showing most gender dysphoric children - even the most insistent and consistent - outgrow their dysphoria in puberty, and that it’s the process of puberty itself that allows them to sort it out. A very liberal friend of mine genuinely believed that childhood dysphoria always equaled a trans adult and she said she’d never read that most kids outgrew it. I showed her the research and she said it definitely affected her thinking on this issue.
2) that there is not any careful evaluation or assessment in all this and that there is no model for telling a child “no” no matter how glaringly obvious it is that the child should not be transitioned. This is the biggest misconception I see in liberals who don’t hold extreme beliefs. They genuinely believe that if a child (or even an adult) is being transitioned, it’s because there has been very careful assessment done and the child has been determined “truly transgender” and the children who are going through a phase or experimenting or are truly psychologically unwell would never actually be transitioned (therefore it’s harmless to go along with make and pronoun changes for those children). What we need to show is that there’s NOT good assessment or differential diagnosis happening. However, this is harder to do than you’d think because it generally requires the person to personally know a child who is being pushed into transition who obviously should not. When a liberal friend sees that (or obvious social contagion) firsthand, then I see them admitting their doubts. Stories like the details of patients at Tavistock or the St Louis pediatric gender clinic don’t seem to have the same impact because they are too distant and too depersonalized or too easily brushed aside as “transphobic reporting” to have much effect.
You didn’t ask this question, but I’ll add what has NOT worked in conversations that you think would.
1) I’ve never had a liberal friend moved by trying to discuss detransitioners. I don’t think it’s a lack of compassion. I think it’s that they have already been convinced they are vanishingly rats and they also don’t have any mental concept of what kind of problems they face, so it’s not a good entry point. (This is of course really terrible for detransitioners)
2) I’ve never had any liberal friend moved by the sports or prisons issue. It doesn’t work as a point of engagement because they usually have already decided it’s either not an issue or a complication within a bigger issue they can live with.
3) similar to the sports/prison issue: I’ve never had any friend shift their thinking by talking about the spike among teen girls. I have found that almost every liberal person I’ve talked to agrees there’s a social contagion among teen girls and that it’s concerning. But it doesn’t seem to move them to speak up about their concerns, change their voting, or put any pressure at all on elected officials or what’s being taught in schools. I think they assume whatever the issue is with those girls will get worked out on its own or it’s something that’s not their problem, something separate from the “real” trans issues and the “real” trans kids they’re protecting.
I have experienced this, but different aspects of the issue get through to people based on their connection to it. And, generally people want to be “kind”. It’s not kind to tell a child they are different from themselves (their body). Not kind. It’s cruel.
I had a friend, fairly left, and after a year of conversations, what has started to break through was that I am two people removed from a girl who has had a double mastectomy at age 13.
Her reaction was to blame the parents. And, I pushed back, how it could all the responsibility rest with parents given the approach of major institutions? She didn’t have an answer, but I know she will still be thinking on it. All that to say is, some things connects with each person and it’s not always clear.
That's true b/c I shocked one woman when I mentioned the prison situ and another when I told her that most LGBs don't support 'trans' and that the primary drivers of the 'trans' movement are heterosexual, cross-dresser males w/ an erotic fixation--they thought it was 'gay 2.0.' Conflation, obfuscation, and confusion is all part of the strategy, as is stealth and silencing anyone who challenges the 'transgender' ideology/movement.
These are such interesting points and comments. In some sense, it also speaks to how individual and idiosyncratic breakthroughs can be. For me, sports has been a pretty good “in,” as haves the change in the cohort to a large number of girls. (I also did have one person watch some of the detrans narratives, and it had a lot of impact. Getting the folks I am generally speaking with to watch--let alone read--anything, though, is really tough. Mostly folks, if willing to listen at all, want a two sentence summary.
Your first 2) is so key and the most important thing to clarify IMO. People unquestioningly accept that "trans kids" is a coherent category, and that providers can tell which kids are truly transgender and are doing some kind of differential diagnosis. The Tavistock reporting and testimony out of the Texas hearing makes it clear that this isn't happening.
For sure. And Jamie Reed’s affidavit out of Missouri !
This is exactly the question I keep coming back to in my own mind- how can we have accepted that bodies can be wrong? Bodies just are... and minds are so often wrong! Lisa, this is the absolute heart of the whole thing, I think. And asking them to consider what it means to send that message to your daughter is perfect. I have tried this, but my lefty friends believe I no longer have a daughter because she says she is my son. Luckily I have a few friends who are in the confused center with me and understand my concerns. Thank you once again for helping me feel way less alone!
One thing to keep in mind: mermaids (uk) is now distancing themselves from the phrase "born in the wrong body." They explain that it was helpful in the past to try to explain the 'trans' person's experience, but they claim they did not and do not really believe that. We see this kind of linguistic ninja move repeatedly ("Language is evolving all the time"). When we point out the fallacy of a concept in gender ideology, they will argue around it and say that's not what they really meant.
Is "changing your sex," or "you could be a boy or a girl, no one knows," or "assigned at birth" a better focus than the phrase "born in the wrong body" perhaps better because it is harder to wiggle out of these statements? I'm not sure. But I think this is a really important question to focus on. What one point could we highlight?
As usual, Lisa, you seem to be reading my mind because I have just been struggling again with the question -- how can I peak people? How can I show this?
Follow the money. Rich people are benefiting from the ideology. https://youtu.be/tLXdoqXbC6k
Have you seen any reporting on this (written reporting)?
I would contact Jennifer Bilek for that.
The real question you are asking here is, “How can we get people to think?” That’s a tough one.
When I first became aware of the issue, I (naively) imagined that this could be done through reductio ad absurdum. If the ideology leads us to perform experimental medical treatments on children, then isn’t there something wrong with the ideology? Or if it leads us to put rapists in women’s prisons? Or if it leads us to let men, who have an obvious biological advantage, to compete in women’s sports?
Clearly, this doesn’t work. Reductio ad absurdum only works with people who are predisposed to think. So the question is, “Why are people unwilling to think?”
Part of it is tribalism. This is what my side “thinks,” so this is what I think. (After a difficult conversation with a feminist friend of mine, who really was refusing to see the contradictions, she admitted to me that her problem was that she lived in Portland. A brief moment of unintentional honesty!)
Another part is the (bizarrely) persistent belief in the integrity of the media. In my experience as a political researcher, if you try to tell people something that is scandalous, people have a response -- though it is usually unspoken -- that in effect says, if what you are telling me is true, it would be reported. In the case of your friends, by, say, the NY Times, which is almost definitionally assumed to be a source of authoritative information (if The NY Times would turn on a dime on this issue, a lot of minds would quickly change, but not because they are thinking).
A third part is the sheer horror of it. People don’t really want to have to think about living in a society that is, in effect, mutilating its children, or simply letting men rape women in prison. This is a powerful disincentive to thinking.
So, back to the question. How do we get people to think? I don’t think it involves hammering one essential point. If I were in denial about something (speaking from bitter experience here), it wouldn’t work for me.
What has worked to get me to think were the very few teachers I had who used the Socratic method. So rather than hammering points, we have to ask the right questions, not with force but humility.
Leor Sapir recently commented in Benjamin Boyce’s podcast that in twenty minutes or so he could get a group of liberals to see that there was a problem with child transition. But they all persisted to believe that there really was such a thing as a trans child.
But what does that mean, really? I think that’s at the heart of of all the contradictions that lead to the reductio ad absurdums that should make people think, but don’t. I think it’s just a belief, a quasi-religious belief. But we are not going to get anywhere by asserting that.
So we need to ask, sincerely, with genuine curiosity. What do you mean when you say a child is born in the wrong body? What do you mean when you say a child is trans?
And take it from there.
Wow, Daniel -- you and I were apparently typing at the same time. My comment below reads like a reductio of yours, but it was original when I wrote it!
Yes Daniel and Jen have hit the nail on the head. There is a good deal of tribalism involved. People are people and the tendency to simply sway toward the group we are affiliated with is a very powerful thing. And addressing the root - what does it mean to be a trans child is probably the method to go with. There is, of course, no scientific proof of such a thing. So how can we have a treatment or cure for something that is not real?
Less wordy than mine, so truer to the spirit of Socratic dialog.
The Left does not admit that main stream (left leaning) media follows the totalitarian guidelines of a webpage for reporting called "The Trans Journalists Association Style Guide" which has no sources or persons with journalistic expertise named as the origin of this document. Men like my crossdressing ex-husband, who constantly falsely claims to be 'mother' to our two sons and constantly claims he's been the target of "micro-aggressions," (but is an executive in his tech firm for 20 years now) are the ones who wrote up instructions not to report on detransitioners ("there are so few") and not to report on botched surgeries (or deaths, such as in the Dutch Ferring Pharma funded studies (De Vries, et al, 2014) and not to ever discuss the ex-wives and children's mental anguish and grief. Also, never, ever report on crimes by female-identifying men, "because trans are overrepresented in the prison population." It is a cult, it must be exposed as a cult, and the links to pornography and prostitution, I'm finding out from former "escorts" are heavily woven into this world, as is the use of cocaine backstage at drag shows.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB_Htt42Xeo&t=49s
Thanks for this. Helen Joyce writes about the transactivists' control of the media in her book Trans. It is true that every time a murder is committed by a trans identified man, it either isn't reported by the mainstream media, or the murderer is referred to as a woman and then the reporting immediately stops (Nikki Secondino, for example). There is no follow-up reporting because of the pesky issue of violent male criminals being housed in women's prisons, which needs to stay out of the news.
EG, Dana Rivers, who killed 2 lesbians and their adopted son (the son and one woman were persons of color) after harassing them at the women's music festival, MichFest. He's making an appeal based on mental illness. Convicted, reported only in local newspapers in deep blue California.
Exactly.
The website Reduxx.info is keeping track of all the transwomen's crimes and reports on them.
This post fired me up - and everyone's comments elicit a "YESSSSSS!" from me! Yesterday I had a meeting with an executive director of a large, deeply impactful community organization. He is very liberal, extremely intelligent, and loves thinking and leading outside the box. I told him in 5 minutes what is going on with the gender stuff and my stance (critical, obviously) on it. He was shocked, especially when I told him about how harmful puberty blockers etc are to a person's long-term sexual health & fertility, among other things. He had had no idea. I truly think the main issue is that the majority of smart, well-meaning people HAVE NO IDEA about everything that you, Lisa, and your brilliant, courageous peers write and talk about on this subject. Most people think it's a fringe issue, that you're either an ally or a bigot, and they have not been curious enough to step outside their NY Times/Washington Post newsfeed. Also, if they are "privileged" they probably have friends and/or family members who now identify somewhere on the LGBTQ (especially TQ) spectrum, so they don't dare consider information that would make them feel like they aren't being supportive.
So, I think what the "allies" need to understand is 1) they are being manipulated as the information they are receiving is not scientific and it's causing kids harm; 2) in a nutshell why Sweden and UK have abruptly changed their policies due to having data; 3) this is yet another area that social media has had a deep impact on our youth's mental health and on our culture.
My meeting yesterday with the CEO also included the founder of another huge national organization. The founder, who is extremely liberal, and a deeply religious Christian, on another topic (I didn't talk to him about the gender stuff - his organization helps underserved youth), said, "In the 70s, we were already seeing the destruction of the connections with the extended family, as well as the deconstruction of religion and faith. I predicted that we would next see the destruction of the nuclear family. In the US, leaders only think in terms of 2, 4 or 5 year plans. I always think long-term. Unfortunately, I was right. In a conversation with Hillary Clinton, I told her, you're right - it takes a village to raise a child, but the village is being destroyed." As he was talking, I was struck by his wisdom and how the gender thing isn't a fringe issue - it has extremely wide, long-range ramifications. If others could only see this, and not be so focused on extreme attempts to stop it, I think more people on the Left will see based on common sense, what this is all about.
yes x 1000! Telling progressives they are being manipulated tends to get them to pay attention. As a progressive (or a former progressive, depending on how we define this now), in a university, I see the effects of this holier-than-thou attitude daily. It squarely posits conservatives as idiots who have yet to see the truth. When the tables are turned, it can be very unsettling -- and I think it can be a very effective tactic. When I've explained gender ideology from a "follow the money" perspective, progressives are pissed off to have been misled and manipulated.
Follow the money here: https://youtu.be/tLXdoqXbC6k
Love this! Brava! In my own experience, I can confirm that there are a lot of “smart, well-meaning people [who] HAVE NO IDEA about everything that you, Lisa, and your brilliant, courageous peers write and talk about on this subject.” Once you can get into a conversation and break that barrier, you can start to make headway. Then, the problem is, how to connect the dots to actions individuals are willing and able to do.
Would showing graphic depictions of teenaged girls w/ mastectomy scars or the forearm that has been stripped of skin and subcutaneous tissue for phalloplasty be shocking enough to get someone's attention?
Probably not the place to start with friends and neighbors, but I would sure like for the Bidens and others in D leadership to be faced directly with the consequences of what they are supporting.
Makes me wonder if Biden has a clue what he is supporting or if he has a bunch of 'trans' ideologues around him who are not forthcoming about the implications of the 'trans' nonsense.
I have to think Rachel Levine is constantly whispering in his ear. Who else would have proposed he sit down with that grifter Mulvaney, eg? Not that any of this lets Biden off the hook.
"Puberty blockers keep people trapped in puberty forever, they make it impossible to have a fulfilling adult sex life."
Follow that with, "did you know enough about your body at 13 to make that life long choice?"
If they are still listening ask them if they are aware this is an off label experimental use of these drugs.
And as Malcom Clark said during one of the Genspect Bigger Picture Conference in Killarney, going through puberty allowed him to develop mentally and grow physically out of his tortured prepubescent self. Puberty blockers effectively trap kids in their most awkward, uncomfortable phase of their lives. Why would you want to do that?
Also, look who is benefitting! https://youtu.be/tLXdoqXbC6k
Here's some info about the manipulators who are benefiting from the mutilation of children:
https://youtu.be/tLXdoqXbC6k
The kids making these decisions, or allowing their parents to make the decisions for them, do not have fully developed brains. They are probably 10 years from full development in the part of their brain that allows them to consider consequences, to prioritize considerations, even think into the future. What is the typical “time horizon” of a 15-year-old in terms of future thinking? Now subtract three years for any sort of Neuro divergence that affects executive functioning. If 15-year-old is making decisions with the brain development and time horizon of a 12-year-old. They can maybe see a week into the future and plan for a week into the future.
There is a reason why you cannot rent a car until you’re 25. Why your rates on car insurance go down at the age of 25. Those numbers are all looked at by actuaries and the numbers don’t lie. The numbers reflect the brain development that happens around age 25.
But letting kids make decisions about the rest of their lives with this brain development is ok?!
Follow the money too! https://youtu.be/tLXdoqXbC6k
The example you gave of your gender nonconforming daughter, who they all knew, was deploying visual persuasion. Citing medical reports is not. Try using more visual descriptions and depictions.
This is such a good point. I recall being trained to talk to people about climate change, and needing both a tangible metaphor and the grace to recognize that the problem is overwhelming and substantial. Along side it has to have positive actions, when the reality has sunk in.
Grace is key. People don't, generally, like being told they are doing something or believe something wrong, but a well crafted metaphor can persuade people. This is the premise behind Win Bigly by Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams. https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780735219717
Want to second your observation “alongside it has to have positive actions.” I remember, way back when, a volunteer coordinator who said, like a mantra, “people need things to do!” At first I disparaged it (and of course the things to do have to have a chance to be productive, not make work), but I have come to see that it is really hard for most of us to recognize something is truly awful, but not know what we can possibly do about it--or feel the problem is so big, how can doing a small thing, which is all I can manage, make any difference? That same volunteer coordinator answered that with “many hands make light work.” She was so good at what she did: two messages in that, first, here’s a small thing to try; second, don’t feel you are doing too little, just do what you can.
Brilliant!
Or, tell them who is pushing this agenda and benefiting from it: https://youtu.be/tLXdoqXbC6k
That the trans ideology is most harmful to gay people (and mostly to lesbians). So many people on the left believe that trans is the natural progression of the gay rights movement that many of us really believe in and fought for. Trans and gay are not only NOT the same-trans ideology is in fact very homophobic and harming an entire generation of gay kids.
At the recent Genspect conference about 'trans' in Ireland Stella O'Malley was asked what was the most important thing she wanted people to take from the conference and she said: 'That 'trans' is not about being gay.'
Exactly!
And many of the LGB want absolutely nothing to do with the TQ! And please follow the money as laid out by Jennifer Bilek here: https://youtu.be/tLXdoqXbC6k