Love this article and the connections you make here. My only disagreement is with this statement-- “...the similarities between Jewel’s story and the stories of many transgender people (especially trans-identifying youth) cannot be denied. Years of suffering due to great discomfort with their own bodily identity...Check...” What I’m seeing at my daughter’s progressive suburban high school is that the very many, mostly girls, who identify as trans did not suffer with gender dysphoria for years or even at all. At the very least Jewel, crazy as she is, felt this way since age six. Trans is a social contagion. Straight kids are living closeted lives the same way gay kids did years ago. Trans is their ticket to the glorified oppressed minority. From the looks of it after reading your article, trans ableism could very well be the next big thing that crushes the souls of so many parents. Imagining my daughter with a beard and no breasts is devastating enough. Imagining her needing (desiring) a cane or wheelchair is too much to bear. Munchausens syndrome run amok for the parents who bring their babies to gender clinics. Okay enough rambling. Thank you!
You are absolutely right, I did not precisely differentiate here between the current wave of ROGD teens and the "older generation" of gender dysphoric people (those few who were suffering from it before it became a "trend"). I corrected this inaccuracy and put a footnote because it seems a very important distinction to me.
What is so striking ot me is the blatant double standard with regards to transgenderism on the one side and transableism on the other side. While I'm sure there are people who are crazy enough to say that everybody should be allowed to just amputate any limbs (in the name of "self-determination" etc.), I do believe that the majority position on this is that people like Jewel are not sane and urgently need psychological care. But the current trans cult *celebrates* amputation, just of different body parts, and everyone goes along with it. So in a way, transableism is already being made socially acceptable... I just really hope it doesn't get any worse than it already is.
I agree with all of that. It’s funny, when I pointed out the similarity of black face and woman face to my daughter she was adamant that they’re different. With no explanation. My hunch is she’d say the same regarding amputating an arm and amputating a penis or breasts. The trans ideology like you point out is so celebrated and encouraged unlike trans racialism and trans ableism… will those obvious connections ever be recognized by the people who need to see them the most?
Those who are in the cult are unable to see it until they step outside of the cult. When I first read about the comparaison of trans ideology to a cult/sect, it finally made sense to me: Only through blind belief can you adhere to such an inherently inconsistent ideology such as gender/trans ideology.
I truly hope you daughter will soon wake up from this 🙏
There are some conceptualizations of ROGD, though, including Abigail Schrier's in her book, that actually do theorize that many or most ROGD-ers are also suffering mental distress. It's just that, the root of their distress isn't that they have long felt they are in the wrong body. The idea is that these adols and young adults are suffering from some other type of problem-be it social exclusion, bullying, eating disorders, OCD, anxiety, etc etc etc-and stumble upon gender as a convenient and socially sanctioned way of channeling and expressing their pain. And it has a magical solution in a pill, to boot!
Very well written article, and I agree with the other commenter who wrote that the trans epidemic is largely affecting teens whose suffering has little to do with gender and everything to do with loneliness, anxiety, and too much time spent online. But transition is the special of the day, every day, the cure for whatever ails them. We grow into adults slowly, with much pain and awkwardness. Imagine what a trip it must be to think you can be a new person almost overnight by taking hormones and getting surgery, and grown ups will even help you do it! I wish this article didn’t contain the terms Woke Left and WokeMindVirus. The people who need to be convinced that there’s something rotten going on are my fellow lefties, but the inclusion of those terms means I can’t share this article with them. Thank you for writing it.
Re: ROGD teens: Absolutely. I corrected this inaccuracy and put a footnote because it seems a very important distinction to me.
Yes, the current trans epidemic is the result of a toxic cocktail of societal failure, social contagion, online culture, and an epidemic of mental illness (more thoughts on that here: https://twoplustwo.substack.com/p/why-are-so-many-children-declaring). It's absolutely tragic and heartbreaking, especially considering the fact that - as you say - the adults are in on it, even though they should know better, and the children pay a horrible price.
I would be curious to know what your fellow Lefties say about Wokeism. Do they not believe it is part of the problem? Does any mention of the word discredit an article in their eyes?
I would also like to clarify that I'm neither Dem nor GOP (I'm not American), I would consider myself politically moderate, but of course since about 5 years ago I'm probably considered "far-right" or something ;-)
I think the word "woke" will make most Dems shut down immediately, and "cancelled" rings of conspiracy theories to them, so I avoid word like those. On the other hand, with friends who have kids in the trans cult, I have no problem using these words and we all know exactly what we are talking about. I think making it okay for Democrats to express opposition to pediatric transition is very, very important. Many Democrats privately oppose it but won't speak up because in the US we constantly get hammered with the message that only the Right opposes it. I used to live in a very blue county in a blue state, and most adults surveyed were against gender being taught in early elementary school grades; however I bet very few of those adults would say so publicly. All the media outlets popular with Democrats (NYTimes, WAPO, NPR) refer to legislative efforts to protect children from irreversible surgeries as "anti-trans" and, even worse, "anti-LBTQ," and your average Dem (one who doesn't have an ROGD kid) believes those are neutral news outlets.
I agree with what you have said - using the term 'woke' in any negative sense causes Dems to shut down fast. It's a very loaded word and is mainly used by those on the 'right' to insult those on the 'left.' The US is terribly divided and conversation is almost impossible...too much us vs them on both sides. To those on the 'left,' being woke means being 'empathetic,' caring about people, and justice...and always being on the 'correct' side of all that is 'humane' and 'good.' Anyone opposing 'wokeness' only cares about 'controlling' and enforcing their (religious) beliefs on others...and is 'always wrong,' if not 'evil.' To lefties those on the 'right' never think for themselves and are controlled by those who tell them who to 'hate' and exploit their fear/anger for power. The 'funny' thing is that the lefties who believe so much in their own 'independence of thought' and their demands for 'freedom for all' have conniption fits and attack anyone who doesn't surrender to their group's ideology/groupthink/groupspeak. 'Misgendering' someone is considered to be 'violence,' and even asking questions about gender ideology is considered 'transphobic' and near 'genocide.'
I'd been pretty leftist most of my life...until they started behaving more like a cult regarding the demand to unquestionly submit to gender ideology. That started opening my eyes to the darker side of 'wokeness' and the conformity of thought it demands. Both sides are full of indoctrination and intolerance. More people are starting to become aware that we are all being manipulated, but I avoid using the word 'woke' when having discussions with people if I want them to think beyond what our news sources are feeding us. But for now I'm pretty 'politically homeless.' (If you saw my FB feed you'd think many of my friends believe that trans identifying children are the closest things to angels on earth possible, and that drag is the most revered 'art form' ever.)
Very interesting, thank you. Yes, it is religious fervor that is driving both the "woke Left" and the "extreme Right". Common sense has been lost completely it seems.
Also, "Left" and "Right" doesn't mean anything anymore nowadays. The same mechanisms and shifts are happening in Europe: Voicing any criticism of gender ideology, immigration policy, education policy, climate change measures etc. and you are considered an alt-right super nazi. I feel just as politically homeless.
As a lefty, I very much agree. I would add that most uses of the term "woke" that I hear or read are attached to articles much more confrontational-divisive, and often with factual inaccuracies or exaggerations (or legitimate controversies in which the extreme of one side is presented as established fact). So, I find that when I notice and author or article using that term it definitely makes me suspicious, defensive, and I automatically and somewhat unconsciously rachet down the credibility rating of that author or article in my own mind.
Generally speaking, I think people are much more open to alternate views when they feel respected, and disparagement or name calling-which is typically how I see the word "woke" being used these days-does nothing to engender that.
I think one of the main reasons I still use the term "woke" (despite all its potentially negative connotations) is that there is simply no other term that encapsulates the craziness of this movement. I don't really like terms such as the "New Left" or "leftists" because it besmears the original idea of being Left in a same way that "far-right" now does to a Conservative. But woke does certainly not equal left and far-right does not equal Conservative.
Very interesting. So "woke" only adds fuel to the fire, I see. I will keep that in mind. The last thing I want is add to the division because I really think that it is especially those "non-woke Lefties" (those on the Left who have not been completely captured by this ideology, but who are very much opposing any idea that comes from the Right, even if it makes sense) that we need to get on board to stop this gender craze.
The polarization is a real problem. Only Republicans (Marjorie Taylor-Green, for example) are willing to give a platform to detransitioners; and only right-wing news outlets will give a platform to so-called TERFs (like Kara Dansky, president of Women's Declaration International, on Newsmax). That further solidifies the public's belief that only the far right is opposed pediatric gender transition. Detransitioners and gender-critical Dems would love to have a voice in the more moderate or Left-leaning media, but they are shut out. And most people, regardless of their political affiliations, fear losing their jobs if they express any disapproval or apprehension regarding pediatric transition or self-ID.
Thanks SCA and Steersman! That is a brilliant article, I didn't know about it. It probably wouldn't be possible to publish this in The Atlantic today, would it?
"Suppose doctors started amputating the limbs of apotemnophiles. Would that contribute to the spread of the desire? Could we be faced with an epidemic of people wanting their limbs cut off? Most people would say, Clearly not. [...]
I'm not so sure. Clinicians and patients alike often suggest that apotemnophilia is like gender-identity disorder, and that amputation is like sex-reassignment surgery. Let us suppose they are right. Fifty years ago the suggestion that tens of thousands of people would someday want their genitals surgically altered so that they could change their sex would have been ludicrous. But it has happened. The question is why. One answer would have it that this is an ancient condition, that there have always been people who fall outside the traditional sex classifications, but that only during the past forty years or so have we developed the surgical and endocrinological tools to fix the problem.
But it is possible to imagine another story: that our cultural and historical conditions have not just revealed transsexuals but created them. That is, once "transsexual" and "gender-identity disorder" and "sex-reassignment surgery" became common linguistic currency, more people began conceptualizing and interpreting their experience in these terms. They began to make sense of their lives in a way that hadn't been available to them before, and to some degree they actually became the kinds of people described by these terms."
De nada; share the wealth, praise the lord and pass the ammunition ... 😉🙂
Though I'm not sure that your shot at The Atlantic is entirely justified even if the implicit accusation against them and the "Main Stream Media" probably has some merit. But for example & ICYMI, see their recent "The Only Way Out of the Child-Gender Culture War" by Helen Lewis:
Bit vague, inconclusive and suffers from not clearly defining the relevant terms, but a more or less balanced and honest look at the issue.
Ms. M: "Fifty years ago the suggestion that tens of thousands of people would someday want their genitals surgically altered so that they could change their sex would have been ludicrous. But it has happened. The question is why."
Very good question, the one of the hour in fact 🙂. But an hour which is getting rather late, and substantially later than when Bob Dylan first suggested it some 50 years ago:
But the short answer seems to be "pervasive, pernicious, pigheaded, and pathological scientific illiteracy" -- so to speak. Something from Carl Sagan's "Demon-Haunted World" that underlines that problem:
"I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; ... when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness."
Far too many are far more concerned about what "feels good" than about what the facts of any given matter actually are. And who tend to get their knickers in a twist whenever one attempts to draw attention to those latter facts. We all have our "unexamined assumption" and biases -- present company excluded, of course ... 😉🙂 -- and they're often not easy to address or confront; they're more or less the bedrock we stand on, and any serious criticism of them tends to rattle the china cups and saucers in their cupboards. Which I know from experience.
But rather important to do so: Job One as the old Ford commercial once put it; the Fate of Western "Civilization" hangs in the balance. So to speak. 🙂 Though still not sure yet whether that's hyperbole or understatement.
More particularly and as a case in point is your later, "once .... 'sex-reassignment surgery' became common linguistic currency". However, and not to give you a hard time since the "failing" or "inadvertency" seems ubiquitous, one might reasonably argue or suggest that your own "change their sex" is part of the problem. That it too is just giving "currency" -- a currency that should be devalued if not delisted on all currency exchange markets in the world -- to the rather unscientific if not toxic "idea" that humans can actually change sex.
That seems the crux of the matter, of the whole transgender clusterfuck. A "bull" which far too few are willing, or able, to "take by the horns" because of "prior commitments", because their tender and precious "feelings" are "offended" by the logical consequences of the facts of the matter.
Maybe moot exactly what the relevant facts actually are -- so many strewn about on the ground and covered, often by intent, with ideological claptrap, motivated "reasoning", and outright bullshit. But the bottom line, so to speak, is the question of exactly what we are to mean by the terms "male" and "female". We might reasonably define them to denote those who possess penises and vaginas -- or reasonable facsimiles thereof -- which even kindergarteners should be able to grasp; who have convex and concave mating surfaces, respectively, so to speak. A more or less credible definition with some hoary provenance and utility:
In which case it is "reasonable" to argue that people who have "sex-reassignment surgery" have, in fact, "changed sex". No problemo; no harm, no foul. 🙄
However, that is most certainly NOT what the standard biological definitions actually stipulate. They SAY that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. A conclusion that many people find rather "unpalatable" at best. But since when do we modify, bastardize, distort, and corrupt scientific terminology and theories so as not to "offend" those with "delicate" sensibilities and sensitivities? Sadly, far too often ...
So -- Houston -- we have a serious and "mission-critical" problem. One that will take "all hands on deck" to solve, will take an honest look at the proverbial "devils in the details". In a note from our sponsors, some further elaboration on those themes can be found here 🙂:
There have always been sick people enamored of self-mutilation. From the beginning of history one finds cults where the self- or agreed-to-be-castrated ecstatically served their gods. Where all sorts of hideous body modifications were mainstream in societies. This isn’t a new awful post-modern construction. It’s human nature at its usual.
We ought perhaps to stop the hysteria on both sides and say—do what you want; pay for it yourself; get your own insurance to cover medical catastrophes arising from what you did because the rest of us and our premiums won’t be responsible.
But all of that is sort of the reason why I try to emphasize the biological definitions for the sexes. People can try to APPEAR like members of the opposite sex -- through playing dress-up or more "draconian" solutions. But, by those biological definitions, those draconian solutions just turn those people into sexless eunuchs.
Time to start calling a spade a fucking shovel, to draw a line in the sand, and let the chips fall where they may. To really mix some metaphors. 🙂 But I think the point stands as the crux of the matter.
Well, I do think that it must absolutely stop with children. If a 40-year-old wants to cut his penis off, well that's that.
But glorifying the self-mutilation of children is unacceptable and utter societal failure. And since so much of the current trans wave is social contagion and due to our current toxic social climate in general which praises self-mutilation and the "trans experience", I'm afraid I cannot let this one go. As some say: If there's a hill to die on, this is it.
(I just want to point out at the beginning that in the previous comment I had quoted from Carl Elliot's article from "The Atlantic" mostly.)
Elliot's statement that "'sex-reassignment surgery' became common linguistic currency" is spot-on, I think. It's a fancy way to say: It has become completely socially acceptable, a norm, a celebrated ideal even. This is where we are now, 20 years later: A 15-year-old gets a mastectomy and proudly shows off the scars on her torso on TikTok.
Re: "But since when do we modify, bastardize, distort, and corrupt scientific terminology and theories so as not to "offend" those with "delicate" sensibilities and sensitivities? Sadly, far too often ..."
Absolutely and that is the whole point: If people were less cowardly and would just say "Listen, you cannot change sex, it's impossible!", without being afraid of people not liking them, then we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
And of course, Carl Sagan pretty much got it right back then.
Ms. M: "I had quoted from Carl Elliot's article ...."
Sorry about that Chief, had missed it 🙂 -- been quite some time since I'd actually read his article. But quite agree with your "spot-on".
But largely why I get a bit "peeved" at careless language -- as they said during WW2, "loose lips ship ships", though the phrase probably goes back further than that -- probably the cause for the sinking of the Spanish Armada ... 😉🙂. Which is why I often make some effort to show people the "errors of their ways" 🙂 -- for examples, see my comments at Broadview & GC News:
Ms. M: " If people were less cowardly and would just say 'Listen, you cannot change sex, it's impossible!', without being afraid of people not liking them, then we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place."
Amen to that! 👍🙂
However, as I've often argued before, that kind of hinges on exactly what we actually mean by "male" and "female". Great many people seem not to fully appreciate the differences between, on the one hand, experiences AS a member of a category and, on the other hand, the criteria that qualifies individuals AS MEMBERS of the category in the first place. For example, we all have HAD experiences AS teenagers, but I expect very few of us can say that we ARE teenagers.
Very few people of 35 will say that they "self-identify" as a teenager because we all realize that they would be seen as "barking mad" to do so. But when some "be-penised" XYer says he "self-identifies as a female"? -- granted the keys to the kingdom. Houston, we have a problem ...
Big part of the problem there -- the reason we are "in this mess in the first place" -- is that far too many refuse to consider how categories work, and the logical consequences of the definitions for them.
Everywhere in the media there is always talk about cliché cliché cliché and that it's bad, but clichés aren't bad in themselves. Clichés are only bad if they are forced. But it's boys who are forced to be quiet, when boys want to fight or have fun fights, they are forbidden. And many also say everything would be social, but there are also studies that say something different. There are also neurobiological facts. Well, then of course there are people who say that society reinforces the neurobiological facts, but then of course there are other people who say something else, you should accept the differences between boys and girls, it's not that bad , when boys and girls are different. Equal rights and tolerance also means accepting that you are different, that you want to make them the same, but that is not tolerance. And also the gender neutral upbringing makes me extremely angry, I find the upbringing quite hostile to boys.
Nice article and a very important comparison. I do think there is one side sort of overlooked, though: I am in full agreement that any type of distress over one's self, physical or otherwise, should be treated psychologically first. But. Sadly, effective psychological treatment is incredibly difficult to access for myriad reasons, and even what would be considered the most effective psychological treatment is not very effective at all for some conditions, nor for the most severe presentations of many other conditions. I am no expert on BIID, but what I have read on the topic seems to indicate that that condition is one that is often profoundly resistant to any of the treatments we have today. Much like the severe cases of gender dysphoria, like the transsexuals of the 70s. Also like many of the most severe and long-standing cases of eating disorders. (The NYT also ran an article about palliative care for individuals with severe treatment-resistant anorexia, in which the goal shifts from curing the illness to maximizing quality of life). In cases where the illness has persistent for decades, has not improved with psychotherapy, AND is causing severe impairment in quality of life and functioning, there is an argument to be made that extreme measures such as amputating a limb may be warranted as a form of palliative care. In other words, some medical and psych professionals feel that just like all areas of medicine, there are some cases that simply will not respond to curative treatment. In those cases, my personal opinion is that there may be justification for doing what will most maximize quality of life, even if it impairs physical function to some extent.
Of course, that's assuming the person is really suffering, has been for years and years, and has attempted more traditional and less extreme forms of treatment first. Where the gender world really lost me was when they began insisting that there should be no gatekeeping at all. And where the extremists in the field began advocating for impairing physical function even when the gender identity really isn't causing distress. To say that we should not try to help people be comfortable in their healthy functional bodies because that would be trans genocide is simply unethical. But by the same token, if that has been attempted-really legitimately attempted-and is not working AND the patient is in severe distress throughout, at some point it seems it might be time to consider other options. Denying that that is ever appropriate seems akin to demanding that all cancer patients continue chemo, even when the cancer is still advancing and they are obviously dying, and refusing to treat their pain with narcotics at the end of their life because "they might get addicted".
Love this article and the connections you make here. My only disagreement is with this statement-- “...the similarities between Jewel’s story and the stories of many transgender people (especially trans-identifying youth) cannot be denied. Years of suffering due to great discomfort with their own bodily identity...Check...” What I’m seeing at my daughter’s progressive suburban high school is that the very many, mostly girls, who identify as trans did not suffer with gender dysphoria for years or even at all. At the very least Jewel, crazy as she is, felt this way since age six. Trans is a social contagion. Straight kids are living closeted lives the same way gay kids did years ago. Trans is their ticket to the glorified oppressed minority. From the looks of it after reading your article, trans ableism could very well be the next big thing that crushes the souls of so many parents. Imagining my daughter with a beard and no breasts is devastating enough. Imagining her needing (desiring) a cane or wheelchair is too much to bear. Munchausens syndrome run amok for the parents who bring their babies to gender clinics. Okay enough rambling. Thank you!
You are absolutely right, I did not precisely differentiate here between the current wave of ROGD teens and the "older generation" of gender dysphoric people (those few who were suffering from it before it became a "trend"). I corrected this inaccuracy and put a footnote because it seems a very important distinction to me.
What is so striking ot me is the blatant double standard with regards to transgenderism on the one side and transableism on the other side. While I'm sure there are people who are crazy enough to say that everybody should be allowed to just amputate any limbs (in the name of "self-determination" etc.), I do believe that the majority position on this is that people like Jewel are not sane and urgently need psychological care. But the current trans cult *celebrates* amputation, just of different body parts, and everyone goes along with it. So in a way, transableism is already being made socially acceptable... I just really hope it doesn't get any worse than it already is.
Thank you for reading!
I agree with all of that. It’s funny, when I pointed out the similarity of black face and woman face to my daughter she was adamant that they’re different. With no explanation. My hunch is she’d say the same regarding amputating an arm and amputating a penis or breasts. The trans ideology like you point out is so celebrated and encouraged unlike trans racialism and trans ableism… will those obvious connections ever be recognized by the people who need to see them the most?
Those who are in the cult are unable to see it until they step outside of the cult. When I first read about the comparaison of trans ideology to a cult/sect, it finally made sense to me: Only through blind belief can you adhere to such an inherently inconsistent ideology such as gender/trans ideology.
I truly hope you daughter will soon wake up from this 🙏
I do too thank you!
There are some conceptualizations of ROGD, though, including Abigail Schrier's in her book, that actually do theorize that many or most ROGD-ers are also suffering mental distress. It's just that, the root of their distress isn't that they have long felt they are in the wrong body. The idea is that these adols and young adults are suffering from some other type of problem-be it social exclusion, bullying, eating disorders, OCD, anxiety, etc etc etc-and stumble upon gender as a convenient and socially sanctioned way of channeling and expressing their pain. And it has a magical solution in a pill, to boot!
Very well written article, and I agree with the other commenter who wrote that the trans epidemic is largely affecting teens whose suffering has little to do with gender and everything to do with loneliness, anxiety, and too much time spent online. But transition is the special of the day, every day, the cure for whatever ails them. We grow into adults slowly, with much pain and awkwardness. Imagine what a trip it must be to think you can be a new person almost overnight by taking hormones and getting surgery, and grown ups will even help you do it! I wish this article didn’t contain the terms Woke Left and WokeMindVirus. The people who need to be convinced that there’s something rotten going on are my fellow lefties, but the inclusion of those terms means I can’t share this article with them. Thank you for writing it.
Re: ROGD teens: Absolutely. I corrected this inaccuracy and put a footnote because it seems a very important distinction to me.
Yes, the current trans epidemic is the result of a toxic cocktail of societal failure, social contagion, online culture, and an epidemic of mental illness (more thoughts on that here: https://twoplustwo.substack.com/p/why-are-so-many-children-declaring). It's absolutely tragic and heartbreaking, especially considering the fact that - as you say - the adults are in on it, even though they should know better, and the children pay a horrible price.
I would be curious to know what your fellow Lefties say about Wokeism. Do they not believe it is part of the problem? Does any mention of the word discredit an article in their eyes?
I would also like to clarify that I'm neither Dem nor GOP (I'm not American), I would consider myself politically moderate, but of course since about 5 years ago I'm probably considered "far-right" or something ;-)
I think the word "woke" will make most Dems shut down immediately, and "cancelled" rings of conspiracy theories to them, so I avoid word like those. On the other hand, with friends who have kids in the trans cult, I have no problem using these words and we all know exactly what we are talking about. I think making it okay for Democrats to express opposition to pediatric transition is very, very important. Many Democrats privately oppose it but won't speak up because in the US we constantly get hammered with the message that only the Right opposes it. I used to live in a very blue county in a blue state, and most adults surveyed were against gender being taught in early elementary school grades; however I bet very few of those adults would say so publicly. All the media outlets popular with Democrats (NYTimes, WAPO, NPR) refer to legislative efforts to protect children from irreversible surgeries as "anti-trans" and, even worse, "anti-LBTQ," and your average Dem (one who doesn't have an ROGD kid) believes those are neutral news outlets.
I agree with what you have said - using the term 'woke' in any negative sense causes Dems to shut down fast. It's a very loaded word and is mainly used by those on the 'right' to insult those on the 'left.' The US is terribly divided and conversation is almost impossible...too much us vs them on both sides. To those on the 'left,' being woke means being 'empathetic,' caring about people, and justice...and always being on the 'correct' side of all that is 'humane' and 'good.' Anyone opposing 'wokeness' only cares about 'controlling' and enforcing their (religious) beliefs on others...and is 'always wrong,' if not 'evil.' To lefties those on the 'right' never think for themselves and are controlled by those who tell them who to 'hate' and exploit their fear/anger for power. The 'funny' thing is that the lefties who believe so much in their own 'independence of thought' and their demands for 'freedom for all' have conniption fits and attack anyone who doesn't surrender to their group's ideology/groupthink/groupspeak. 'Misgendering' someone is considered to be 'violence,' and even asking questions about gender ideology is considered 'transphobic' and near 'genocide.'
I'd been pretty leftist most of my life...until they started behaving more like a cult regarding the demand to unquestionly submit to gender ideology. That started opening my eyes to the darker side of 'wokeness' and the conformity of thought it demands. Both sides are full of indoctrination and intolerance. More people are starting to become aware that we are all being manipulated, but I avoid using the word 'woke' when having discussions with people if I want them to think beyond what our news sources are feeding us. But for now I'm pretty 'politically homeless.' (If you saw my FB feed you'd think many of my friends believe that trans identifying children are the closest things to angels on earth possible, and that drag is the most revered 'art form' ever.)
Very interesting, thank you. Yes, it is religious fervor that is driving both the "woke Left" and the "extreme Right". Common sense has been lost completely it seems.
Also, "Left" and "Right" doesn't mean anything anymore nowadays. The same mechanisms and shifts are happening in Europe: Voicing any criticism of gender ideology, immigration policy, education policy, climate change measures etc. and you are considered an alt-right super nazi. I feel just as politically homeless.
As a lefty, I very much agree. I would add that most uses of the term "woke" that I hear or read are attached to articles much more confrontational-divisive, and often with factual inaccuracies or exaggerations (or legitimate controversies in which the extreme of one side is presented as established fact). So, I find that when I notice and author or article using that term it definitely makes me suspicious, defensive, and I automatically and somewhat unconsciously rachet down the credibility rating of that author or article in my own mind.
Generally speaking, I think people are much more open to alternate views when they feel respected, and disparagement or name calling-which is typically how I see the word "woke" being used these days-does nothing to engender that.
I think one of the main reasons I still use the term "woke" (despite all its potentially negative connotations) is that there is simply no other term that encapsulates the craziness of this movement. I don't really like terms such as the "New Left" or "leftists" because it besmears the original idea of being Left in a same way that "far-right" now does to a Conservative. But woke does certainly not equal left and far-right does not equal Conservative.
Btw, I did enjoy Konstantin Kisin's contemplations on wokeism: https://youtu.be/zJdqJu-6ZPo?si=QrL6W7FJc_P26clO
Thanks for reading!
Very interesting. So "woke" only adds fuel to the fire, I see. I will keep that in mind. The last thing I want is add to the division because I really think that it is especially those "non-woke Lefties" (those on the Left who have not been completely captured by this ideology, but who are very much opposing any idea that comes from the Right, even if it makes sense) that we need to get on board to stop this gender craze.
Yes indeed.
The polarization is a real problem. Only Republicans (Marjorie Taylor-Green, for example) are willing to give a platform to detransitioners; and only right-wing news outlets will give a platform to so-called TERFs (like Kara Dansky, president of Women's Declaration International, on Newsmax). That further solidifies the public's belief that only the far right is opposed pediatric gender transition. Detransitioners and gender-critical Dems would love to have a voice in the more moderate or Left-leaning media, but they are shut out. And most people, regardless of their political affiliations, fear losing their jobs if they express any disapproval or apprehension regarding pediatric transition or self-ID.
The Atlantic wrote about this two decades ago.
A New Way to Be Mad - The Atlantic
Links for those who may not have seen it:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/12/a-new-way-to-be-mad/304671/
https://archive.ph/OsvZ6
Thanks SCA and Steersman! That is a brilliant article, I didn't know about it. It probably wouldn't be possible to publish this in The Atlantic today, would it?
"Suppose doctors started amputating the limbs of apotemnophiles. Would that contribute to the spread of the desire? Could we be faced with an epidemic of people wanting their limbs cut off? Most people would say, Clearly not. [...]
I'm not so sure. Clinicians and patients alike often suggest that apotemnophilia is like gender-identity disorder, and that amputation is like sex-reassignment surgery. Let us suppose they are right. Fifty years ago the suggestion that tens of thousands of people would someday want their genitals surgically altered so that they could change their sex would have been ludicrous. But it has happened. The question is why. One answer would have it that this is an ancient condition, that there have always been people who fall outside the traditional sex classifications, but that only during the past forty years or so have we developed the surgical and endocrinological tools to fix the problem.
But it is possible to imagine another story: that our cultural and historical conditions have not just revealed transsexuals but created them. That is, once "transsexual" and "gender-identity disorder" and "sex-reassignment surgery" became common linguistic currency, more people began conceptualizing and interpreting their experience in these terms. They began to make sense of their lives in a way that hadn't been available to them before, and to some degree they actually became the kinds of people described by these terms."
(also: John Money again, urgh)
De nada; share the wealth, praise the lord and pass the ammunition ... 😉🙂
Though I'm not sure that your shot at The Atlantic is entirely justified even if the implicit accusation against them and the "Main Stream Media" probably has some merit. But for example & ICYMI, see their recent "The Only Way Out of the Child-Gender Culture War" by Helen Lewis:
https://archive.ph/FthDI
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/05/texas-puberty-blockers-gender-care-transgender-rights/673941/
Bit vague, inconclusive and suffers from not clearly defining the relevant terms, but a more or less balanced and honest look at the issue.
Ms. M: "Fifty years ago the suggestion that tens of thousands of people would someday want their genitals surgically altered so that they could change their sex would have been ludicrous. But it has happened. The question is why."
Very good question, the one of the hour in fact 🙂. But an hour which is getting rather late, and substantially later than when Bob Dylan first suggested it some 50 years ago:
https://genius.com/Bob-dylan-all-along-the-watchtower-lyrics
But the short answer seems to be "pervasive, pernicious, pigheaded, and pathological scientific illiteracy" -- so to speak. Something from Carl Sagan's "Demon-Haunted World" that underlines that problem:
"I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; ... when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness."
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#The_Demon-Haunted_World_:_Science_as_a_Candle_in_the_Dark_(1995)
Far too many are far more concerned about what "feels good" than about what the facts of any given matter actually are. And who tend to get their knickers in a twist whenever one attempts to draw attention to those latter facts. We all have our "unexamined assumption" and biases -- present company excluded, of course ... 😉🙂 -- and they're often not easy to address or confront; they're more or less the bedrock we stand on, and any serious criticism of them tends to rattle the china cups and saucers in their cupboards. Which I know from experience.
But rather important to do so: Job One as the old Ford commercial once put it; the Fate of Western "Civilization" hangs in the balance. So to speak. 🙂 Though still not sure yet whether that's hyperbole or understatement.
More particularly and as a case in point is your later, "once .... 'sex-reassignment surgery' became common linguistic currency". However, and not to give you a hard time since the "failing" or "inadvertency" seems ubiquitous, one might reasonably argue or suggest that your own "change their sex" is part of the problem. That it too is just giving "currency" -- a currency that should be devalued if not delisted on all currency exchange markets in the world -- to the rather unscientific if not toxic "idea" that humans can actually change sex.
That seems the crux of the matter, of the whole transgender clusterfuck. A "bull" which far too few are willing, or able, to "take by the horns" because of "prior commitments", because their tender and precious "feelings" are "offended" by the logical consequences of the facts of the matter.
Maybe moot exactly what the relevant facts actually are -- so many strewn about on the ground and covered, often by intent, with ideological claptrap, motivated "reasoning", and outright bullshit. But the bottom line, so to speak, is the question of exactly what we are to mean by the terms "male" and "female". We might reasonably define them to denote those who possess penises and vaginas -- or reasonable facsimiles thereof -- which even kindergarteners should be able to grasp; who have convex and concave mating surfaces, respectively, so to speak. A more or less credible definition with some hoary provenance and utility:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/female#etymonline_v_5841
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_connectors_and_fasteners
In which case it is "reasonable" to argue that people who have "sex-reassignment surgery" have, in fact, "changed sex". No problemo; no harm, no foul. 🙄
However, that is most certainly NOT what the standard biological definitions actually stipulate. They SAY that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. A conclusion that many people find rather "unpalatable" at best. But since when do we modify, bastardize, distort, and corrupt scientific terminology and theories so as not to "offend" those with "delicate" sensibilities and sensitivities? Sadly, far too often ...
So -- Houston -- we have a serious and "mission-critical" problem. One that will take "all hands on deck" to solve, will take an honest look at the proverbial "devils in the details". In a note from our sponsors, some further elaboration on those themes can be found here 🙂:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman
There have always been sick people enamored of self-mutilation. From the beginning of history one finds cults where the self- or agreed-to-be-castrated ecstatically served their gods. Where all sorts of hideous body modifications were mainstream in societies. This isn’t a new awful post-modern construction. It’s human nature at its usual.
We ought perhaps to stop the hysteria on both sides and say—do what you want; pay for it yourself; get your own insurance to cover medical catastrophes arising from what you did because the rest of us and our premiums won’t be responsible.
"served their gods" -> severed their goods? 😉🙂
Generally agree -- apropos of which, you might have some interest in the history of eunuchs in Imperial China:
https://www.usrf.org/news/010308-hiddenpower.html
Rather surprising that more than a few "men" saw that as a form of advancement, as a "golden opportunity". Mondo Cane in spades:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondo_Cane
But all of that is sort of the reason why I try to emphasize the biological definitions for the sexes. People can try to APPEAR like members of the opposite sex -- through playing dress-up or more "draconian" solutions. But, by those biological definitions, those draconian solutions just turn those people into sexless eunuchs.
Time to start calling a spade a fucking shovel, to draw a line in the sand, and let the chips fall where they may. To really mix some metaphors. 🙂 But I think the point stands as the crux of the matter.
Well, I do think that it must absolutely stop with children. If a 40-year-old wants to cut his penis off, well that's that.
But glorifying the self-mutilation of children is unacceptable and utter societal failure. And since so much of the current trans wave is social contagion and due to our current toxic social climate in general which praises self-mutilation and the "trans experience", I'm afraid I cannot let this one go. As some say: If there's a hill to die on, this is it.
(I just want to point out at the beginning that in the previous comment I had quoted from Carl Elliot's article from "The Atlantic" mostly.)
Elliot's statement that "'sex-reassignment surgery' became common linguistic currency" is spot-on, I think. It's a fancy way to say: It has become completely socially acceptable, a norm, a celebrated ideal even. This is where we are now, 20 years later: A 15-year-old gets a mastectomy and proudly shows off the scars on her torso on TikTok.
Re: "But since when do we modify, bastardize, distort, and corrupt scientific terminology and theories so as not to "offend" those with "delicate" sensibilities and sensitivities? Sadly, far too often ..."
Absolutely and that is the whole point: If people were less cowardly and would just say "Listen, you cannot change sex, it's impossible!", without being afraid of people not liking them, then we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
And of course, Carl Sagan pretty much got it right back then.
Ms. M: "I had quoted from Carl Elliot's article ...."
Sorry about that Chief, had missed it 🙂 -- been quite some time since I'd actually read his article. But quite agree with your "spot-on".
But largely why I get a bit "peeved" at careless language -- as they said during WW2, "loose lips ship ships", though the phrase probably goes back further than that -- probably the cause for the sinking of the Spanish Armada ... 😉🙂. Which is why I often make some effort to show people the "errors of their ways" 🙂 -- for examples, see my comments at Broadview & GC News:
https://lisaselindavis.substack.com/p/no-one-practicing-teaching-about/comment/15479519
https://gcnews.substack.com/p/thursday-september-29-2022/comment/9397160
Ms. M: " If people were less cowardly and would just say 'Listen, you cannot change sex, it's impossible!', without being afraid of people not liking them, then we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place."
Amen to that! 👍🙂
However, as I've often argued before, that kind of hinges on exactly what we actually mean by "male" and "female". Great many people seem not to fully appreciate the differences between, on the one hand, experiences AS a member of a category and, on the other hand, the criteria that qualifies individuals AS MEMBERS of the category in the first place. For example, we all have HAD experiences AS teenagers, but I expect very few of us can say that we ARE teenagers.
Very few people of 35 will say that they "self-identify" as a teenager because we all realize that they would be seen as "barking mad" to do so. But when some "be-penised" XYer says he "self-identifies as a female"? -- granted the keys to the kingdom. Houston, we have a problem ...
Big part of the problem there -- the reason we are "in this mess in the first place" -- is that far too many refuse to consider how categories work, and the logical consequences of the definitions for them.
Everywhere in the media there is always talk about cliché cliché cliché and that it's bad, but clichés aren't bad in themselves. Clichés are only bad if they are forced. But it's boys who are forced to be quiet, when boys want to fight or have fun fights, they are forbidden. And many also say everything would be social, but there are also studies that say something different. There are also neurobiological facts. Well, then of course there are people who say that society reinforces the neurobiological facts, but then of course there are other people who say something else, you should accept the differences between boys and girls, it's not that bad , when boys and girls are different. Equal rights and tolerance also means accepting that you are different, that you want to make them the same, but that is not tolerance. And also the gender neutral upbringing makes me extremely angry, I find the upbringing quite hostile to boys.
Nice article and a very important comparison. I do think there is one side sort of overlooked, though: I am in full agreement that any type of distress over one's self, physical or otherwise, should be treated psychologically first. But. Sadly, effective psychological treatment is incredibly difficult to access for myriad reasons, and even what would be considered the most effective psychological treatment is not very effective at all for some conditions, nor for the most severe presentations of many other conditions. I am no expert on BIID, but what I have read on the topic seems to indicate that that condition is one that is often profoundly resistant to any of the treatments we have today. Much like the severe cases of gender dysphoria, like the transsexuals of the 70s. Also like many of the most severe and long-standing cases of eating disorders. (The NYT also ran an article about palliative care for individuals with severe treatment-resistant anorexia, in which the goal shifts from curing the illness to maximizing quality of life). In cases where the illness has persistent for decades, has not improved with psychotherapy, AND is causing severe impairment in quality of life and functioning, there is an argument to be made that extreme measures such as amputating a limb may be warranted as a form of palliative care. In other words, some medical and psych professionals feel that just like all areas of medicine, there are some cases that simply will not respond to curative treatment. In those cases, my personal opinion is that there may be justification for doing what will most maximize quality of life, even if it impairs physical function to some extent.
Of course, that's assuming the person is really suffering, has been for years and years, and has attempted more traditional and less extreme forms of treatment first. Where the gender world really lost me was when they began insisting that there should be no gatekeeping at all. And where the extremists in the field began advocating for impairing physical function even when the gender identity really isn't causing distress. To say that we should not try to help people be comfortable in their healthy functional bodies because that would be trans genocide is simply unethical. But by the same token, if that has been attempted-really legitimately attempted-and is not working AND the patient is in severe distress throughout, at some point it seems it might be time to consider other options. Denying that that is ever appropriate seems akin to demanding that all cancer patients continue chemo, even when the cancer is still advancing and they are obviously dying, and refusing to treat their pain with narcotics at the end of their life because "they might get addicted".