One of the problems I face as a liberal anti-trans activist is that I don't want to be associated with all the conservative ideas that conservatives hold, ideas that I consider to be very bad. For that reason I was hesitant to watch the Megyn Kelly segment, but I did out of curiosity. She didn't utter a single word that I disagreed with, and I felt the anger she was expressing.
The question for me, however, is -- How conservative is she?
If she is tolerant of trans individuals, is she also tolerant of gay people? Most conservatives, especially Christians, are not.
Is she a racist? Republicans across the country continue to try to disenfranchise black voters.
Does she support abortion? Abortion is arguably more important to women than rejecting trans ideology is.
Does she support the social safety net? The social safety net probably benefits more women than men, given that women live longer and need Social Security for more years.
Does she think the 2020 election was stolen from Trump?
The list goes on.
I keep wondering why conservatives are so clear and articulate in their opposition to transgender ideology, and yet they are so wrong on so many other issues.
Where do you stand on these other issues, Ms. M? Are you a knee-jerk conservative?
Thanks for the links and thumbnail sketches. Too much to read through at the moment but I had seen Megyn Kelly's post earlier -- quite a "cri de coeur", a rather stunning volte face and profound sea change. Hopefully one which will "peak" a great many people.
However, I can't help but get the impression that there are still a bunch of misperceptions on both sides which tends to preclude an early resolution to the problems entailed by transgenderism. And first and foremost is that pretty much every last man, woman, and otherkin has profoundly different and quite antithetical definitions for both "sex" and "gender", the latter in particular. Nice summary of the problem from evolutionary biologist Colin Wright:
Wright: "Most confusion about 'gender' results from people not defining it. Many definitions are in circulation:
Apropos of which, I did, as you suggested, finally read Helene's post over at PITT. Quite a damning indictment of transgenderism, but seems clear that her "there are only 2 genders, male and female" puts her into those thinking "sex" and "gender" are synonymous.
In addition, I also managed to at least skim through your article there -- also quite a damning indictment -- and was intending to post a comment there on it. But one thing that kind of struck me as "problematic" is that you seem to give short shrift to the argument that there is some merit in the concept of gender, that you more or less agree with Helene that "sex" and "gender" are synonymous:
No doubt that there are many "toxic" aspects to "gender ideology", but rejecting Wright's items 3 through 5 seems to preclude being able to grapple with some aspects of the issue that are important to resolving the problem. You may wish to take a gander at my elaborations on that theme in a post on Lisa Davis' Substack:
And, on the other side of the coin, you might also have some interest in a Note by a US professor and politician Robert Reich, and my response to him:
Reich: "Why has the GOP targeted transgender people? There’s not a shred of evidence that trans people are threats to anyone. All they want is to live peacefully as their true selves."
"true selves" -- 🙄. Seems like a rather serious misunderstanding of the situation, one which is apparently predicated on a serious lack of any sort of agreement on what we actually mean by "sex" and "gender". As philosopher Will Durant put it in commenting on Voltaire's quip:
Durant: “ 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task. — Will Durant"
Megyn Kelly’s repeated invocation of "I didn't see the harm," culminating in finally seeing the harm once it's right out there, obvious and in everyone's face and too big and harmful to ignore, is a tragic illustration of the value of conservative notions of morality. This is precisely why conservatives tend to discount the "harm" standard in favor of the neglected but more important "conservative virtues" outlined by Moral Foundation Theory. By the time the harm becomes big and clear enough to see, the damage has already been done.
One of the problems I face as a liberal anti-trans activist is that I don't want to be associated with all the conservative ideas that conservatives hold, ideas that I consider to be very bad. For that reason I was hesitant to watch the Megyn Kelly segment, but I did out of curiosity. She didn't utter a single word that I disagreed with, and I felt the anger she was expressing.
The question for me, however, is -- How conservative is she?
If she is tolerant of trans individuals, is she also tolerant of gay people? Most conservatives, especially Christians, are not.
Is she a racist? Republicans across the country continue to try to disenfranchise black voters.
Does she support abortion? Abortion is arguably more important to women than rejecting trans ideology is.
Does she support the social safety net? The social safety net probably benefits more women than men, given that women live longer and need Social Security for more years.
Does she think the 2020 election was stolen from Trump?
The list goes on.
I keep wondering why conservatives are so clear and articulate in their opposition to transgender ideology, and yet they are so wrong on so many other issues.
Where do you stand on these other issues, Ms. M? Are you a knee-jerk conservative?
Thanks for the links and thumbnail sketches. Too much to read through at the moment but I had seen Megyn Kelly's post earlier -- quite a "cri de coeur", a rather stunning volte face and profound sea change. Hopefully one which will "peak" a great many people.
However, I can't help but get the impression that there are still a bunch of misperceptions on both sides which tends to preclude an early resolution to the problems entailed by transgenderism. And first and foremost is that pretty much every last man, woman, and otherkin has profoundly different and quite antithetical definitions for both "sex" and "gender", the latter in particular. Nice summary of the problem from evolutionary biologist Colin Wright:
Wright: "Most confusion about 'gender' results from people not defining it. Many definitions are in circulation:
1. Synonym for sex (male/female)
2. A subjective feeling in relation to one's sex
3. Societal sex-based roles/expectations
4. Sex-related behavior
5. Personality traits"
https://twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/1234040036091236352
Apropos of which, I did, as you suggested, finally read Helene's post over at PITT. Quite a damning indictment of transgenderism, but seems clear that her "there are only 2 genders, male and female" puts her into those thinking "sex" and "gender" are synonymous.
In addition, I also managed to at least skim through your article there -- also quite a damning indictment -- and was intending to post a comment there on it. But one thing that kind of struck me as "problematic" is that you seem to give short shrift to the argument that there is some merit in the concept of gender, that you more or less agree with Helene that "sex" and "gender" are synonymous:
https://pitt.substack.com/p/leave-the-kids-alone
No doubt that there are many "toxic" aspects to "gender ideology", but rejecting Wright's items 3 through 5 seems to preclude being able to grapple with some aspects of the issue that are important to resolving the problem. You may wish to take a gander at my elaborations on that theme in a post on Lisa Davis' Substack:
https://lisaselindavis.substack.com/p/florida/comment/17050351
And, on the other side of the coin, you might also have some interest in a Note by a US professor and politician Robert Reich, and my response to him:
Reich: "Why has the GOP targeted transgender people? There’s not a shred of evidence that trans people are threats to anyone. All they want is to live peacefully as their true selves."
https://substack.com/profile/21792752-steersman/note/c-16959278
"true selves" -- 🙄. Seems like a rather serious misunderstanding of the situation, one which is apparently predicated on a serious lack of any sort of agreement on what we actually mean by "sex" and "gender". As philosopher Will Durant put it in commenting on Voltaire's quip:
Durant: “ 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task. — Will Durant"
https://quotefancy.com/quote/3001527/Will-Durant-If-you-wish-to-converse-with-me-said-Voltaire-define-your-terms-How-many-a
Megyn Kelly’s repeated invocation of "I didn't see the harm," culminating in finally seeing the harm once it's right out there, obvious and in everyone's face and too big and harmful to ignore, is a tragic illustration of the value of conservative notions of morality. This is precisely why conservatives tend to discount the "harm" standard in favor of the neglected but more important "conservative virtues" outlined by Moral Foundation Theory. By the time the harm becomes big and clear enough to see, the damage has already been done.