Protest being organised outside the UK Green Party Conference from 6th-8th September at Manchester Central.
It’s being organised by Supporters of the Green Women’s Declaration for Women’s Sex-Based Rights (GWD), many of whom have been suspended or expelled from the Party.
Dr. Hilary Cass has published an article in the The British Journal of Psychiatry, called “Gender identity services for children and young people: navigating uncertainty through communication, collaboration and care.”
Thank you, Mostly Cloudy, at comment 2, for the link to the piece by Dr. Cass. It made for very interesting, and sobering, reading. How many thousands of young women have been turned prematurely, by the ideological and unprecedented rush to treatment (a treatment without any evidence of efficacy, and with dangerous effects), into old women? Old women with atrophied and/or surgically removed reproductive organs, damaged hearts, fragile bones? Destroyed forearms and severely damaged urinary tracts? Ugly mastectomy scars? It’s heartbreaking when any one of those things happen to a woman unavoidably, due to injury or cancer; but all of them, without any indication of a life-threatening illness, to one previously healthy teenager? How did the medical profession fall so easily into routine horror?
Trump doesn’t understand gender ideology issues, but once again I find a Republican making more sense on the issue than the left-wing publication reporting on it.
“The transgender thing is an incredible thing,” said a slouching, low-energy Trump. “Your kid goes to school and comes home a few days later with an operation. The school decides what’s going to happen with your child, and you know many of these childs [sic] 15 years later say ‘What the hell happened? Who did this to me?’”
But schools in the US are allowing children to pretend to be the opposite sex and adopt new names, and some places have laws that the schools are forbidden to tell the parents. And there are many detransitioners who have expressed anger at how they were pushed into the transition process; there are lawsuits in progress.
A piece in the Guardian about the BMA rejecting the Cass report has a quote from Dr. Jacky Davis about the lack of rational reasoning behind the rejection.
[Davis] also claims in her piece that those driving the union’s “anti-Cass” policy “are sincere in their beliefs [but] have no hard evidence for their opposition”
Belief without evidence pretty much sums up the entire trans stance: it’s a matter of faith; you just have to believe. The BMA council responded to Davis by taking a leaf straight from the TRA playbook.
We are not aware of any bullying complaints from Dr Davis or supporters of her position through BMA channels or processes.
“This is in contrast to the frankly abhorrent transphobic and homophobic abuse directed at BMA members and staff on social media in response to our work on the Cass review.
“I cleaned up their container because it was choked with silk. They seemed kind of sulky afterwards, but look, clean soil, and I propped up a clam shell to give them a nice shelter. What did they do? They coated everything with silk! I can’t even see into their hiding space because the silk is nearly opaque!”
If ever there was doubt over whether virtue signalling was a thing… Mustn’t offend the gender feels of a spider!
I came across this review in Inverse magazine about a Netflix movie called Uglies. The focus of the review is how this is a 2014-style movie that came out ten years too late, for reasons I don’t understand. Apparently there was a YA (“young adult fiction”) dystopian craze ten years ago?
The movie features a dystopian society in which all citizens are required at 16 to undergo cosmetic surgery to become “Pretty”, after which they move to City, an idyllic community where nothing goes wrong and everyone is happy. The central teen character starts questioning the merits of being Pretty, and the motivations of Dr Cable, the person in charge of the project. She flees and joins a resistance group that has discovered the surgery is more than cosmetic: it affects the brain, making people more docile and less able to think for themselves.
The reviewer thinks the story line is ambiguous enough that people can make of it what they wish, but it screams “transgender ideology” to me. This is enhanced by the fact that Dr Cable is portrayed by Laverne Cox, a well-known trans-identified male actor. The review notes as much:
It’s a great villainous scheme within the story, but from the outside looking in, it’s hard for it not to feel icky: Laverne Cox, a trans woman, is playing the role of an evil mastermind brainwashing children into getting life-changing surgeries without them knowing the true side effects. It doesn’t take that much of a leap to turn this beautiful supervillain into a right-wing talking point.
Perhaps it could be a right-wing talking point, but surely it’s a point for anyone opposed to unnecessary cosmetic surgery done to meet societal demands rather than medical needs, and that’s not unique to one side of the political spectrum.
How did the medical profession fall so easily into routine horror?
I think the better question is how we forgot that the medical profession has always been horrific. Its history is an endless litany of horrors inflicted on patients by clinicians both benevolent and malevolent. Technological advancement by applied atrocity has been the rule and also the reason for the field’s rapid progress.
Here’s a piece at The Atlantic by Charlie Warzel, Elon Musk has Reached a New Low, about Musk “using Twitter as a political tool to promote extreme right-wing agendas and to punish what he calls brain-poisoned liberals.” I agree with Warzel on the premise.
As we lurch closer to Election Day, it’s easy to feel as if we’ve all entered the Great Clenching—a national moment of assuming the crash-landing position and bracing for impact.
And it’s with clenched teeth that I read articles such as these, bracing for the moment when the author inevitably cites “transphobia” among the charges of right-wing extremism. I’m so used to seeing otherwise good articles like these ruined by the inclusion, like a loud, stinky belch in the middle of a hymn, that I was very suprised when my eyes reached the bottom of the page, no belch of “transphobia” within it. I had to double-check that I hadn’t missed anything by searching the page for “trans” and “gender” — zero matches found.
I like to think this is a sign of change, that a journalist can write an entire piece about Musk’s unhinged, right wing Twitter behaviour, and not once mention the most public change he’s made to Twitter’s policy, its permission of gender critical speech.
Good interview with Katie Herzog with journalist Hadley Freeman. They discuss eating disorders and the trans issue.
Some highlights:
“Yes, [trans/non-binary] is the new way for girls to express fear of womanhood and it’s being socially validated and the parents are going along with it, which is a big difference from anorexia.”
“There’s a lot of parents at those organisations who have what they call a ‘trans kid’ and therefore no one at the organisation is allowed to critique child gender stuff,” Freeman says.
“Again this is different from anorexia. It’s not like if there’d been a whole load of journalists at The Guardian in the 90s who had anorexic teenage girls, then the paper would have to run loads of articles praising anorexia.”
More normalization by making things “inclusive”: upcoming video game includes top surgery scars in character creator along with specialty pronouns, body type A/B (rather than female/male), gender separate from sexbody type, and all the other nonsense. And this isn’t some indie studio making a little product for a niche audience. This is one of the biggest names in the business.
He had to give notice now, because the statute of limitations on federal lawsuits is 2 years. However, the odds are that he’s hoping the DoJ will not respond immediately, letting it become a denial by default in six months. Why? Because if they reject it immediately, it has to go to a judge before the statute runs out, and Donnie doesn’t do well in front of real judges. But if the DoJ just ignores it and hopes it goes away, then if he wins the election, he then would be in a position to tell the DoJ to settle the suit. I’m sure that if the statute of limitations hadn’t forced his hand, he would’ve waited until the period between the election and the inauguration, so as to be sure it would work. As it is, he’s trying to run out the clock to when he hopes to be back in office, and can literally order the DoJ to give him the money he wants.
I don’t know if that was intended as a Lovecraft reference, but I’m now chuckling at the image of Trump-as-Cthulhu. I can just picture him rising from the depths of his sunken city, Mar-a-R’lyeh, the non-Euclidean geometries of his form defying all known physics. He should be falling forward, and yet he stands. And atop it all, seething and writhing like eels, his mass of tantacular appendages give the illusion of a bad hair-piece.
Ah, now I’m gonna have to go cajole a diffusion model into generating some appropriate images.
One interesting thing about it is that the language is quite technical. When I worked for TPM there was a strict rule against academicspeak: it’s a magazine, not a journal. One of my jobs when subbing was to change all technical jargon to ordinary language. For this one I would have had to request a complete redo. Maybe that rule is no longer in effect, I don’t know, but if it is still a rule, I wonder if they made an exception in this case. Sort of “Ok cowboy, trying yelling ‘terf’ at this.”
It wasn’t just about having to look up, it was about coming across as technical, insidery, professional, etc. A style thing. The worry wasn’t so much about being incomprehensible as about being for philosophers only.
Take the first four sentences:
By normal scientific standards, the hypothesis that a woman is an adult human female is the natural default answer to the question “what is a woman?”. Call that the sex-based account of woman, since it explains being a woman in terms of being female. The sex-based account of woman is simple and informative. It is stated in perspicuous and independently well-understood terms.
It’s recognizably academic philosophy-speak. That’s what the editors wanted to avoid.
Following the open letter signed by more than 1000 senior doctors the BMA council has announced that it will now be reviewing the Cass report from a ‘neutral’ position. Nice bit of backtracking, considering their initial response was to reject the report’s conclusions. This bit caught my eye.
On the BMA’s website, BMA council chair Professor Phil Banfield said the Association’s evaluation of the Cass Review would be “evidence-led, starting from a position of neutrality. I cannot predict the outcome of our evaluation,” he said.
Which makes one wonder what criteria was used for the initial rejection of the report.
Here is the insignificant feather in my cap: while I was certainly not the first, tenth, or twentieth person to see and describe what was happening, when I sent the phrasebook in February 2023, mentioning the growing wave of scientific reviews of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors in Europe and the unanimous verdict that the evidence did not support these treatments, no major American news outlet left of center had yet reported on these developments.
The Atlantic broke this long and curious silence in April 2023, three years after France imposed restrictions.15 The New York Times followed in August 2023. Apart from a tiny syndicated A.P. or Reuters item that was promptly buried, the Washington Post suppressed coverage for another year, until April 2024, when the long-awaited Cass Review was released in the U.K. (Like the rest, the Cass Review concluded that there is no good evidence for these treatments. Puberty blockers for gender dysphoric minors are now banned in England and Scotland, a decision made by the Tories and upheld by Labour.) NPR affiliate WBUR interviewed Dr. Cass in May 2024, but otherwise NPR was entirely silent. Anyone who relied on major left-of-center publications for coverage of this issue over the past several years would have known less than nothing prior to these very recent reversals
Several people on Twitter have attacked Yu as a result.
Well note that distinction there… *several* Elon turning Twitter into a white nationalist-adjacent hellsite instead of a Wokie hellsite has made that much less of a problem.
(Amusing how one of de Bodard’s replies says that Yu “references the Cass Review, which is an immediate red flag”. They love spotting and snitching on suspected “transphobes” in these circles).
Amusing how one of de Bodard’s replies says that Yu “references the Cass Review, which is an immediate red flag”.
As if “believing that humans can change sex” isn’t a red flag. In this version of Overton, reality has become an extremist position, while delusion is passed off as the default, centerist one.
Speaking of modern sf/fantasy … I’ve been trying to find a fun read, but every single time I open a new book, sub-amateur grammar gets in the way. These comma splices, are pissing, me off. Don’t get me started on using commas where periods belong, it really kicks me out of the immersive mindset. And do editors ever suggest not starting every sentence with a conjunction? Or do editors not exist anymore?
Having read Yu’s piece, I may have to give her books a chance, as there were no egregious linguistic sins to be found. If she manages the same command of English in her fiction, then that’s a better starting point than most of what people keep recommending to me.
Can’t comment as it’s all audiobooks on my end but James A. Corey’s “”The Mercy of Gods” is just as solid as The Expanse novels… Probably a bit of Enby shit but since I haven’t retaining I’m sure it’s fine.
Nullius in Verba: Oh, that was absolutely a deliberate Lovecraft riff. In addition to his grotesque manner, it also references, for me, Trump’s cult-like worshippers, insanely spouting devotion to a malevolent entity who will absolutely bring them to ruin if he’s allowed back into power.
A post by Mano Singham took a look at Will Ferrell’s comments on the creation of the Netflix movie, Will and Harper (the same work Ophelia discusses in Flawed but vital self-obsession). Mano describes a scene at a restaurant in Texas: “Ferrell decides to ham it up and takes up the [72 ounce steak] challenge while dressed as Sherlock Holmes. In the film, that scene ends abruptly, switching to the two of them talking next day in the car where Ferrell says that he felt that he had let Steele down”. He quotes a a Fox News (!) article at length, and I was struck by the obliviousness of the twits.
They received what they described as an unexpected and uncomfortable response from diners at a Texas restaurant after Steele mentioned the state hadn’t done enough for trans rights, the New York Times reported.
“I’m from Iowa, but I will raise a glass to your great state of Texas,” Steele said to a receptive audience of diners at the Big Texan Steak Ranch in Amarillo, where Ferrell and Steele planned to attempt the restaurant’s famous 72-ounce steak challenge.
“I wish you guys would do more for trans rights in this state,” Steele added, which silenced the cheers and was met with a few groans from the audience, Chron reported.
“Cheers to Texas and trans rights, right?” Ferrell added. The toast didn’t make it into the documentary, but Steele and Ferrell shared their responses to the moment afterward.
“The room started to feel very wrong to me,” Steele said in the film. “I was feeling a little like my transness was on display, I guess, and suddenly that sort of made me feel not great.”
The airheads toured USA specifically to get a feel of the public perception of Harper’s transness – or transness in general – and to that end, put Harper’s transness on display. The person (or duo, in this case) taking the 72 ounce steak challenge is seated on a stage in full view of the diner with a big timer next to them, plus they brought a film crew with them, plus they engaged the room.
“I was feeling a little like my transness was on display” – no shit you goddamn fool! You put it on a stage, lit it, framed it in camera, and shouted it to the room full of people trying to have a nice dinner! Gahdamn, the obliviousness of the pair is amazing.
Sentence fragments are getting more common, too. I don’t mind them from time to time, for emphasis, or in conversation where you expect them, but some authors do it so frequently you struggle to find the last complete sentence. The book I’m reading now does it practically every paragraph at least once.
Came across this Substack post by way of a newsletter. It is about an initiative from the Tucker Center and Nike, called “Coaching HER”, that is nominally aimed at keeping girls from dropping out of sports, but is clearly about imposing gender ideology and the acceptance of boys-who-claim-to-be-girls in girls’ sports. Very good article, by Sarah Barker at TheFemaleCategory, from a few days ago.
I came across a link to an article regarding the recent post here about college women’s volleyball teams refusing to play against San Jose State because it fields a male player, Blaire (formerly Brayden) Fleming. (https://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2024/no-more-fluffy-bunnies/).
The linked article mentions a lawsuit by a group called ICONS against the NCAA intended to “hold the NCAA accountable for its reckless promulgation of transgender eligibility protocol.”. What caught my eye was that one of Fleming’s teammates, team co-captain Brooke Slusser, has joined the lawsuit, citing the 6’1″ Fleming as a danger not only to opposition players but also to his own teammates. Slusser said that during matches and even in practice sessions Fleming smashes spike shots directly into the faces and bodies of opposing players, and she claims that he hits the ball with enough force to propel it at 80+mph. To put that into context, I looked up the stats for the women’s game: the World Record spike shot speed is 70.02mph, made by a player for the Italian national team in 2022; the average spike shot speed in the women’s game is a mere 44mph., and that’s at International level, not collegiate.
That, however, isn’t the worse claim by Slusser. She also stated that on team trips to away games she was roomed with Fleming without being informed that Fleming is a transgender-identifying male. He kept it a secret from his teammates, and either the college didn’t know (which I would think is unlikely) or it colluded with Fleming to keep it a secret from the team, thereby forcing a young woman to share accommodation with a man against her knowledge and so without her consent. This in a restricted space where she would be alone with him while dressing and undressing, showering and sleeping. How sinister is that?
The San Jose State volleyball controversy really has me scratching my head.
This seems like a really really poor test case or whatever you want to call it.
How can it simultaneously be the case that:
(a) Fleming is obviously out of place on the court and a physical danger to other players; and
(b) nobody knew until this season (which was not Fleming’s first) that this was a trans woman? (It’s Fleming’s third season at SJS)
AoS’s comment, and the Outkick article, mention Fleming being 6’1″, the implication being that this player is towering over the competition.
I checked the roster of Boise State, one of the teams that defaulted rather than play SJS, and it would seem that Fleming would be median height on that roster. Boise State has eight players below 6’1″, one player at 6’1″, and seven who are 6’2″ or 6’3″
SJS itself has two other players who are 6’1″, and one 6’3″ player. So Fleming’s height hardly stands out.
I’m also not seeing what exactly is so “sinister” about Slusser rooming with Fleming. If Fleming was a cis lesbian, would Slusser have the right to know the sexual orientation of the person sleeping and showering in the same hotel room? If the issue is that Fleming is so physically superior to Slusser (who is 5’11”), imagine a 5’6″ player rooming with a 6’3″ closeted lesbian.
I think that women’s sports are one of the areas where there’s been an overreach. But this seems like a really bad example to highlight if that’s the point you’re trying to make.
There are many examples where someone or a few people speaking out inspires other people to speak out. I think the volleyball case is one such example.
Fleming is male. Single-sex hotel rooms for student athletes has been the norm for a long time. They don’t seek to put gay men together, nor lesbians together, nor do they think it’s fine to put gay men in rooms with women. If you’re suggesting that the single-sex hotel room policy should be abolished, then by all means explain, but that’s the policy in the US. Women expect to be in single-sex spaces when they might undress and bathe. It doesn’t need to be established that Fleming is more likely than a lesbian to be predatory; it’s sufficient that he’s male. Women don’t want to undress in front of gay men or nice men, either, nor do they wish to see naked gay men or naked nice men in their hotel rooms in these circumstances. No men. Why should any exception be made for Fleming, and why should Slusser have to put up with that exception?
First, the only evidence we have that Fleming hits 80+ mph is that Slusser says so. How does she know this? Is there a radar gun in team practices or games? If so, then why doesn’t the report say that she’s been recorded doing spikes of that speed?
Second, if Fleming’s spike speed is so extraordinary, why was nobody commenting on it before she was outed as trans? Did she suddenly start increasing her spike speed this season?
Third, are women especially vulnerable to spike speeds of that velocity? Are male volleyball players able to play safely against 80+mph spikes?
Screechy, you are arguing against single-sex spaces for dressing rooms and locker rooms and the like. I do know people who argue against them. If you are indeed arguing against them, fine, make that argument. But the point here is that they do exist, and Fleming should be excluded from women-only spaces because he is male. I do not personally wish to defend the existence of women-only spaces in this thread. I am trying to establish that there is no salient difference between Fleming and the male volleyball team or male team staff that says Fleming should be allowed to room with and dress with female athletes but these other men should not be allowed.
Screechy, where do you get “nobody knew until this season (which was not Fleming’s first) that this was a trans woman”? The Outkick article doesn’t say that as far as I can see.
This week, the Mountain West Conference, which hosts SJSU, was alerted by the ICONS organization of growing concern for female athletes’ safety and hesitance to compete against Blaire Fleming due to apparent physical advantages posed by a man competing against women.
“Growing concern” seems to imply that at least some people did know but didn’t immediately act on what they knew. That’s just normal, surely, and especially so when there’s ferocious pushback any time people do try to defend women’s sports.
Your shrugging off the issue of men in women’s sports=physical risk to women is depressing.
I don’t mean that literally nobody knew. Obviously Fleming knew, and presumably some team and perhaps conference officials. (There has been no suggestion that Fleming is in violation of the existing NCAA rules, so I presume there’s been appropriate testing.)
I just mean that it wasn’t common knowledge. This is not an instance of Veronica Ivy or whoever towering over competitors who aren’t even close to being in the same physical league. Fleming’s own teammate Stusser is saying publicly that she didn’t know, and in fact complaining about it, and there were no boycotts and defaults by opposing teams until this year.
As to shrugging off the issues of physical risk — I think not all sports are the same. There would be zero physical risk to allow a trans woman to compete in, say, high jumping, as the competitors aren’t even active at the same time, much less in physical contact. At the other end of the spectrum you’ve got combat sports like boxing or high contact sports like rugby. Volleyball, it seems to me, is in between, but much closer to the track and field end of the spectrum.
Professional women tennis players play on the same court as men all the time, in mixed doubles events. And while it’s somewhat rare in singles to get hit by an opponent’s shot, it’s pretty common in doubles. In fact, it’s a well-recognized tactic to direct a shot at an opposing net player’s midsection because it’s tougher to return effectively than one to the side. (Actual headhunting is considered unsportsmanlike, and if you’ve got an absolute sitter that you can hit anywhere for a winner, it’s considered bad form to hit at an opponent.)
I don’t know volleyball very well, so it’s possible I’m underestimating the frequency and severity of “volleyball to the face” injuries, and missing some nuance about why male volleyball players aren’t in danger. (I realize there are differences in male-female bone structure, but are male faces really that much more resistant to volleyball impacts? Possibly, but I’m going to need to see some sports science, not an assertion in an Outkick article.)
Look, I get that for most people at B&W, this is a very simple issue: trans women are men, men don’t belong in women’s sports, therefore it’s an outrage and injustice that Fleming is being allowed to play. I’m not trying to talk anyone out of that view. I’m just saying that for anyone who doesn’t share that worldview, this is not a terribly compelling case.
Ah. Well, in my experience, for people who share the worldview that men do belong in women’s sports, nothing that disputes that view is a terribly compelling case.
This actually does seem to be like a Veronica Ivy argument: if women aren’t physically at risk from the male players (and he won’t admit there are ever risks), then there is no argument for keeping them out of women’s sports.
Realistically, if Fleming is male, he does not belong in women’s sports. Women’s changing rooms. Women’s hotel rooms, unless invited by a specific woman, the one who occupies that room.
Putting a male in with a female without telling the female that her roommate is male is dishonest. Suggesting that it is the same argument as used against gay men a couple of decades ago is, at best, disingenuous. This is not the same argument, not really. A gay man in the room with another male does not have a particular physical advantage over the other male, though I realize there may be size differences and so forth that do give one man an advantage over the other. Same with lesbians and women. Would I object to changing in front of a lesbian woman? Yes, probably, but only because I don’t like changing in front of anyone. I would deal with it if required to share a room, but I would have no increased problem undressing in front of a lesbian than in front of a straight woman.
I really haven’t met many women (if any) who are frightened of lesbians. I have met a lot (like, all that I know) that are at least somewhat frightened of men in vulnerable situations, for obvious reasons.
Whether he is larger, stronger, a physical risk, having a physical advantage and thereby stealing trophies from other teams, is not really the issue. Even if none of these conditions exist, he does not belong in women’s sports because he is not a woman. Women fought long and hard to have their own sports, their own spaces, and now men are moving into them at a rapidly increasing rate by calling themselves women.
Kara Dansky has written several times about being in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Ted Cruz on anything. Indeed, Cruz has spoken intelligently in opposition to gender ideology, even if he fails to make sense on some other issues.
So today I saw this NYT article about the Senate race in Texas between Cruz and Colin Allred.
Cruz is focusing on keeping boys out of girls’ sports, and wisely not referring to the issue using the term “trans”. Allred voted against a bill last year that would have required youth sports participation to be based on birth sex, and Cruz is making a lot of political use of that vote. It is having an effect.
“We want to go Democrat,” said Minerva Pedraza, 73, a retired city worker in Brownsville, Texas. “But the issue with the boys in girls’ sports, I’m not OK with.”
Allred has responded, and again avoids using the term “trans”:
On Friday, Mr. Allred took the unusual step of responding directly in one of his own ads, a choice that seemed to acknowledge the potential impact that Mr. Cruz’s anti-trans messaging could be having on what has become a tight race.
“Ted Cruz is lying again, but now he’s lying about our children,” says Mr. Allred, looking directly into the camera. “I’m a Dad. I’m also a Christian. My faith has taught me that all kids are God’s kids.”
Rather than directly defend his past support for gay and transgender rights, Mr. Allred then adds: “Let me be clear, I don’t want boys playing girls sports.”
What he means by that statement is not clear. Is he backing away from his vote? Does he not count “boys-who-claim-to-be-girls” as “boys”? Is he just confused by the whole nonsensical ideology and doesn’t know what to say?
I’m still struggling a bit with “worldview.” It’s a worldview that men don’t belong in women’s sports. Is it a worldview that men do belong in women’s sports?
I suppose I think it’s too narrow and specific to be a worldview. It’s just a practical rule to manage the fact that men have physical advantages over women.
Whether he is larger, stronger, a physical risk, having a physical advantage and thereby stealing trophies from other teams, is not really the issue. Even if none of these conditions exist, he does not belong in women’s sports because he is not a woman.
Exactly. All the other “arguments” including testosterone levels, are handwaving bullshit and smokescreen. You wouldn’t let an adult play in a children’s league simply because they “identify” as a child, even if they’re shorter than some of the children. If you don’t meet the most basic level of eligibility, whether that is sex, age, weight, or whatever no other supposed “qualifications” or exceptions should matter. Men aren’t women and humans can’t change sex. “Transwomen” are men, and have no place in women’s sport or spaces.
Republicans are returning to a message that was tried, mostly unsuccessfully, in the 2022 midterms, as they attempt to motivate their base and curb their losses with female voters repelled by the party’s stance on abortion.
Mr. Trump’s most aired ad about Vice President Kamala Harris in recent weeks ends with the tagline: “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.”
In Ohio since the start of September, every ad about Senator Sherrod Brown from the leading Senate Republican super PAC has touched on transgender topics, such as accusing him of “allowing transgender biological males in girls’ sports.” Mr. Brown is one of the nation’s most vulnerable Democratic incumbents.
In Montana, five ads have deployed similar lines about transgender women in sports and bathrooms as Republicans press the case that Senator Jon Tester, another endangered Democrat up for re-election, is too liberal for the heavily Republican state.
“It’s one of the issues where Democrats are furthest from the center of the country,” said Brad Todd, a Republican ad maker who has produced commercials on transgender issues in multiple races this year. “They are doing something that is totally illogical to appease a tiny slice that is very radical in their base.”
YNnB @ 52 – But the reasons for keeping men out of women’s sports do matter. That’s why there’s so much more resistance to men in women’s sports than to keeping women out of men’s. The main reason adults don’t play in children’s sports is because adults are too big and strong. It’s not just a matter of principle or of category-worship. That’s what Team Yay Men in Women’s Sports like to say, but it’s wrong.
Sadistic Pornographer’s work is being adapted by Hollywood:
The cat’s out of the bag, baby. I’m adapting MANHUNT for TV with Lilly Wachowski, and I couldn’t be prouder or more excited to be writing it. We’re going to do our damnedest to bring this thing kicking, screaming, and queer as hell onto the screen.
The *only* good thing about this is that this planned adaption might finally bring Gretchen Felker-Martin under the critical scrutiny she has evaded for so, so long.
Speaking of books, a they/them called Eli Cugini is whinging about the British publishing industry publishing books that oppose putting rapist men into women’s prisons and drugging and mutilating gay youth. Cugini also defends Tilly Fitzgerald, who was fired from Waterstones after she would “rip up and throw in the bin” books.
But the reasons for keeping men out of women’s sports do matter. That’s why there’s so much more resistance to men in women’s sports than to keeping women out of men’s. The main reason adults don’t play in children’s sports is because adults are too big and strong. It’s not just a matter of principle or of category-worship.
Yes, excellent point. I didn’t mean that the other arguments made by those out to destroy women’s sports shouldn’t be rebutted. I hadn’t thought about my position being “category worship”, but that’s a good point for me to keep in mind too.
I was doing some fine tuning on the “Outlook” e-mail set-up on my work computer, prompted by the desire to turn off the “suggestions” of what it thinks I want to say next that it offers me while I’m writing. It’s like some rude person inside the screen telling me what to type next. Apart from the rudeness, it’s also very distracting. Thanks, but I can finish my own sentences. In the process of disabling this option in Outlook’s Editor settings, I saw a whole list of additional “refinements” alongside and on top of those for spelling and grammar. These are:
Clarity
Conciseness
Formality
Inclusiveness
Punctuation Conventions
Sensitive Geopolitical References
Tone
Vocabulary*
I guess if you’ve got AI, there’s always going to be the urge to Do Something with it. (I’m imagining “Tone” as the voice of Douglas Rains/HAL 9000 : “I can see you’re really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over. I would suggest a more concilliatory tone, as I believe you will regret it later if you press SEND for this e-mail in which you call your boss ‘a fucking asshole.’ “)
But some of these things are not like the others. I’m thinking particularly here of “Inclusiveness,” and “Sensitive Geopolitical References.” These are not akin to the more “rule-based” items that can be built into some kind of algorithm. Inclusiveness and geopolitical sensitivity are inherently political. They can’t be turned into rules. There are different points of view, sometimes more than two. There is no “right or wrong”. Somebody is making decisions as to what activates these prompts. Somebody is taking sides. What keywords have been chosen as “triggers” calling for intervention in the writer’s stream of thought? If a single, particular approach is being suggested as the “correct” one, then somebody’s politics are going to be embedded in this system, but they’re going to be passed off as having come from some kind of “neutral” arbiter.
It’s like the unforced editorial decision to remove the word “woman” from stories about exclusively female health issues, or to use wrong sex pronouns in news stories about trans identified males out of “respect” or “courtesy” that have been embedded in journalistic “style guides,” and reporting “codes of conduct.” What happened to the respect and courtesy for women which have thereby been sacrificed for the feelings of men pretending to be women, including rapists and murderers? The erasure of women on one hand, and the promotion of the idea that men can become women, are political stances baked into the playbook on how information regarding these topics appears in the media at all. It is not “neutral.” It is not uncontroversial. But it colours every story that touches these issues. It’s a filter we’re not supposed to see or think about, turning every story or article into reinforcing propaganda, a steady background dripping of lies we’re supposed to accept unquestioningly. They’re trying to pass it off as mere convention within the nuts and bolts of English usage, nothing for us to concern ourselves with, but there’s much more at stake here than whether or not one is in favour of the Oxford comma.
I imagine that the rules cooked into Outlook’s helpful editorial Big Brother AI operate in much the same way, with some narrow, self-appointed committee deciding what constitutes true “inclusion” and exactly which “geopolitical references” are to be considered “sensitive.” I haven’t experimented with it myself, and I’m not sure I’m inclined to do so, but I do wonder if it is just giving you a warning, or whether it is suggesting some sort of “authorized” or “approved” rewording choices if your thoughts stray into dangerous territory? I simply assume that at this point, “inclusion” will be in favour of “transness”, and that it will police pronoun usage, among other things. I do wonder if it is it attuned to sexism, or just transphobia? Will it suggest “letter-carrier” instead of “mailman,” and “firefighter” over “fireman”? I’d be okay with that, but I suspect it’s going to be more woke and T friendly than that, for example, adding a “T” whenever one enters “LGB.” “Inclusiveness” is not something that is always a good thing. Who decides when it is? Who are they to judge?
What countries or issues make the geopolitics list? Are there polities and conflicts too small or obscure to make the cut? Is the list attuned to local sensitivities and pressures? Is a Chinese writer going to be warned if the enter the words “Tibet” or “Uyghur”? Is anyone outside of China going to be similarly waved off? Has the computer taken sides in the war un Ukraine, or in the middle East? Is the list updated? Things can change quickly; yesterday’s sleepy, tourist idyll can become tomorrows battleground for separatist independence. Is there some time limit? Can we write about the Sudatenland without a tut-tutting from the computer? Again, this is being decided by whoever it is that’s programming the AI. The AI isn’t going to have an “opinion” on any of this until a human gives it one. Politics in, politics out.
*Imagine running a Trump speech through this; it would melt down or commit suicide. But I for one am glad that he is crude and vulgar. I know it’s bad enough that tens of millions of Americans support him as he is, but a careful, polished, and polite wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing, would-be autocrat would be much more dangerous, as he could make himself more appealing to many who might otherwise vote against him.
…a careful, polished, and polite wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing, would-be autocrat would be much more dangerous, as he could make himself more appealing to many who might otherwise vote against him.
Summary: an organization that helps fund abortions in the DC area started making pro-Palestinian posts on social media following October 7. That drew some angry responses and loss of donations from some supporters, which accelerated after a Jewish employee left the organization and published an article about her frustrations.
I’m posting this not because I want to talk about Israel-Palestine. I really, really don’t, as I have nothing to say about that conflict. I’m posting it because it’s an interesting insight about “mission creep” at left-leaning organizations, a subject that has come up here repeatedly in other contexts.
As the article puts it:
The falling-out at DCAF is emblematic of a much larger clash currently roiling the worlds of philanthropy and nonprofits. Employees at left-leaning, mission-driven organizations have increasingly adopted a worldview that sees all issues of injustice as interconnected, making many less satisfied to contain their advocacy to any single issue. This doesn’t always cause internal disputes: Often, a new position added to a group’s platform will be broadly agreed upon, such as a commitment to ending police brutality, and will function more as an expression of solidarity than a programming priority. But nonprofits that attract staffers and funders of reasonably diverse political leanings are finding it difficult to broaden their messaging in ways that please the full spectrum.
As a result, coalitions that have worked toward similar goals are fracturing over issues only tangentially related to their core missions, threatening their ability to make progress on areas of common ground.
The head of the organization is
still struggling to come to terms with the sudden abandonment of donors with whom she thought she was politically aligned, over a disagreement on an issue that has nothing to do with the service the organization provides: funding abortions in the D.C. area. “I didn’t really understand our supporter base the way I thought I did,” she said.
Yes, she is shocked, shocked! to discover that her simplistic worldview of:
1. Abortion rights are a good cause.
2. People who support abortion rights are good people who support other good causes.
3. Therefore, people who support abortion rights will support this Other Thing that I think is a good cause
has proven not to be true.
Frankly, I find this whole attitude to be selfish. People who work in the private, for-profit sector understand that, notwithstanding the occasional HR blather about “bringing our whole selves to work,” the world doesn’t work that way. You don’t jeopardize your company’s business just so you can use its platform to promote your own personal causes; you can do that on your own time (and maybe not even then, if you’re a high-ranking employee). But folks in the charitable/nonprofit/advocacy world seem to think that their job and their organization’s platform is there to be used to just Do Good generally however they see fit, and fuck the donors and supporters if they don’t agree. Even if that compromises the actual mission, and achieves nothing of substance on the other issue. As Slate notes:
Therein lies the big dilemma at the heart of this situation. Whatever influence an abortion fund’s Instagram account might have on the well-being of Palestinians in Gaza is small: It relies on the hope that playing a small role in shifting the cultural conversation might eventually change U.S. policies around Israel. Likewise, the withholding of funds from a pro-Palestine abortion fund will do little, if anything, to protect Israelis or Jews.
The people hanging in the balance here are abortion-seekers who cannot afford the cost of terminating a pregnancy, and everyone involved in this story wants them to get the money they need to make their own reproductive choices. In the last fiscal year, DCAF helped more than 3,000 people living in or traveling to the D.C. area get abortions. Is it worth it to make a political statement—in an Instagram post or with the withdrawal of one’s money—if it comes at their expense?
I should note that Korman, the Jewish employee who left, is hardly beyond criticism here. (Again, putting aside whatever your feelings are about I-P.) She involves a lot of the classic tropes about feeling “unsafe” and accusing her former colleagues of not acknowledging “her humanity.”
But folks in the charitable/nonprofit/advocacy world seem to think that their job and their organization’s platform is there to be used to just Do Good generally however they see fit, and fuck the donors and supporters if they don’t agree. Even if that compromises the actual mission, and achieves nothing of substance on the other issue.
This sounds like the platform of the UK Green Party. At least until it goes broke from having to pay court costs of those it harasses in pursuit of their purity spiral
I should note that Korman, the Jewish employee who left, is hardly beyond criticism here. (Again, putting aside whatever your feelings are about I-P.) She involves a lot of the classic tropes about feeling “unsafe” and accusing her former colleagues of not acknowledging “her humanity.”
.
Snowflake politics.
One wonders how these people ever build coalitions with anyone in the first place. At some point, we’re going to disagree with everyone else about something, even if it’s favourite colours, or flavours of ice cream. That disagreement doesn’t mean that you’re out to kill them, or they you. Escalating our preferences to life and death importance isn’t going to make somebody else more inclined to take our side. It imply encourages others to raise the stakes in a similar manner, so that every microscopic wrinkle in the political landscape is turned into a hill upon which they’re prepared to die. It doesn’t help when you suddenly have to work with others in the face of threats that actually are life and death situations. How do you set aside the differences you’ve magnified in order to cooperate with others you’ve long since condemned as irredeemably evil?
It discusses and defends the Cass Review. It also points out that thoroughly ” randomised, doubleblind, placebo-controlled trials” for the use of puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria in minors do not exist, and therefore the use of PBs for this purpose cannot be justified.
Subhead: “Fans and players disliked the slogan, leading the team to issue a statement acknowledging the “hurt we caused” the LGBTQ+ and transgender communities.”
In the launch, the club unveiled its brand through its “Too Many Balls” campaign, a product of Boston-based ad agency Colossus meant to be a pun referencing the number of famous men’s teams in the city and the need for more women’s franchises. In an accompanying video, a narrator says: “Yeah, Boston loves its balls, but maybe there are too many balls in this town. So let’s add a new chapter to our city’s legacy. With new idols, new dreams and a new league to cheer for: the National Women’s Soccer League.”
That sounds quite funny and apropos. But it was deemed “transphobic”, so it must be shut down and an apology issued.
The apology references the hurt they caused “to the LGBTQ+ community and to the trans community in particular”. But of course there was no hurt to anything other than the T part, and perhaps they were even standing up for the L part. There shouldn’t have been any hurt to the “trans community” either, except for those men who insist they are women and that they or other men should be allowed to play on this women’s team; can’t mention the fact that these men possess male genitalia, or used to possess male genitalia, nor make any reference to genitalia at all, except perhaps for phrases intended to insult women.
There was also some complaint about the team name, “BOS Nation”. I have no idea why. BOS is the code for the main Boston airport, and “BOS Nation” is an anagram of “Bostonian”. Seems clever to me.
The website I write for has a very good article about the obstacles women face in health care, partic. around issues involving menopause. It’s remarkable because it hammers home the many distinct and critical differences between female and male bodies and how these are overlooked. Not for trans fans.
Book recommendation: “The Barn” by Wright Thompson about the Emmett Till murder and surrounding environs.
The storytelling is interesting in that a lot of it is about tracing the red strings of fate that connects everything in the Delta going down the centuries. Definitely recommend the audiobook as well because it’s read in the author’s glutinous Mississippi voice and sounds wonderful.
Confirmed all my priors about how degenerate rural people are (but to be clear that was not the writer’s objective, I just have a weird and evil brain,).
NHS trans clinic ignores Cass report recommendations
Fears of ‘Tavistock version 2’ as new gender centre favours discredited trans guidance.
[A] new NHS centre has snubbed the Cass review in favour of discredited transgender guidance that promotes both puberty blockers and surgery without age limits. […] In a job advertisement for a clinical psychologist position, [The Nottingham Young People’s Gender Service] says it is “essential” to “practice [sic] in a gender affirming manner in line with” guidance from the controversial World Professional Association of Transgender Healthcare (WPATH).
Dora Moutout and Margeurite Stern, the writers of the French gender-critical book “Transmania”, have been subjected to death threats from extremist trans activists because of the book. They have now had to cancel a planned conference in Brussels.
M. C. Thanks for that. I feel less inclined now to write an essay I have planned for 3QD, “Whatever happened to the fem boy?” (I. e. me), about my “gender nonconformity” in the 60s and 70s and how that might go over these days with such kids being pressed into transing.
I’ll stick with columns like this one for the meantime:
An influential doctor and advocate of adolescent gender treatments said she had not published a long-awaited study of puberty-blocking drugs because of the charged American political environment.
Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy has found, in a recent study, that puberty blockers given to gender dysphoric children did not improve mental health outcomes. She now doesn’t want to publish the research, because she is afraid the work will be “weaponized” by those opposed to these treatments. She makes hand-wavy claims that these children must be doing OK because they were doing OK before treatment, which makes one wonder why these children were given treatments in the first place, if they were indeed not in any distress.
I know I’ve seen her name before, but I’m drawing a blank where. She’s a well-known advocate for “gender-affirming care”, and I seem to recall she’s butted heads with gender critical people in some large way before.
It is not surprising that she refuses to look at the evidence of her own work, and that she’s take an ideological position rather than publish the results.
Oh look. Sophie Lewis, the Stupid Person’s Idea of A Clever Person, has written a lengthy screed excoriating those wicked Trotskyists who refuse to follow the dictates of the Gender Stalinists.
I know I’ve seen her name before, but I’m drawing a blank where. She’s a well-known advocate for “gender-affirming care”, and I seem to recall she’s butted heads with gender critical people in some large way before.
.
Yes. Johanna Olson-Kennedy is the “Pop Tart” Doctor:
Driving home earlier tonight I was listening to Billy Bragg’s Changing Times, a documentary about protest music that originally aired in 2019. Bragg was speaking with the British folk-punk singer, Tom Robinson, about Robinson’s ‘British gay anthem’, (Sing if You’re) Glad to Be Gay.
For those not familiar with the song, here’s a brief précis culled from the song’s Wiki page:
The song was originally written by Tom Robinson [an out gay singer] for a London gay pride parade in 1976.
“Glad to Be Gay” is built on four verses criticising British society’s attitudes towards gay people. The first verse criticises the British police for raiding gay pubs for no reason after the decriminalisation of homosexuality by the 1967 Sexual Offences Act.
The second verse points to the hypocrisy of Gay News being prosecuted for obscenity instead of magazines like Playboy or the tabloid newspaper The Sun, which published photographs of topless girls on Page 3. It also criticises the way homosexual people are portrayed in other parts of the press, especially in the newspapers Daily Telegraph, Sunday People and Sunday Express. The third verse points out the extreme consequences of homophobia, such as violence against gay people.
In the final verse, the song makes a plea for support of the gay cause. This part, originally intended as a bitter attack on complacency of gay people at the Pride march in 1976, became a rallying call for solidarity from people irrespective of their orientation.
So far, so clear. The song was a straightforward protest song about the treatment of and attitudes towards gay men in the 1970s I remember the song well; I even saw it performed live at a Tom Robinson Band gig in 1979/80 and joined in the singing with the rest of the audience. It was a strangely joyous experience being in a throng of spiky-haired punks, young gay men, ‘normies’ like me and a whole lot more disparate groups, all linking arms and belting out the chorus “Sing if you’re glad to be gay, sing if you’re happy that way”. I remember hearing him being interviewed about the song many times on radio and TV and he always explained the song in terms of gay men. And yet for some reason, in the interview with Bragg he said “Of course, back then [the ’70s] ‘gay’ meant something different than it does today. It was an umbrella term covering the whole LGBTQIA+ community.”
I’m a straight male and even to me, hearing this gay man (possibly even a gay icon to a generation of British gay men) who had been so outspoken about gay rights suddenly come out with such an obviously dishonest, revisionist statement was absolutely shocking. I can barely begin to imagine how those gay men who looked to him throughout the dark days of the ’70s and ’80’s must feel. ‘Utterly betrayed’ probably doesn’t even begin to describe it.
Apologies for the length of that rant, but it was six hours ago that I heard it and I still can’t quite get my head around it.
She makes the point that not everything about pushing back against gender ideology is gender-critical feminism, or even simply feminism. She notes that Genspect is not a feminist organization. Her own interest in the topic comes from the field of psychology:
For the record, my understanding of this issue is not rooted in a critique of gender oppression and the patriarchy. I’m psychologically minded and I view this issue as a psychological mass formation as described by the psychologist Mattias Desmet. I don’t believe that sex-based oppressive stereotypes fully explain this issue—though I do believe that sex-based stereotypes can be oppressive and certainly contribute to this social contagion. Equally, while I also recognise that some are profiting from this issue, I don’t think “following the money” fully explains it either. Instead, I believe that a deep sense of loneliness, disconnection, floating anxiety, frustration, and rage are the primary drivers behind this trend, and I am primarily focused on these issues to better understand why so many people are drawn to the idea of becoming a different person with a new identity.
In general, I like the point that, even though I (or a group) might agree with a position, that doesn’t mean that the position is a focus.
There is a really good Venn diagram in the post, showing how different concerns intersect (and don’t intersect). The larger circles are Gender Criticals, Philosophical Liberals, and Social Conservatives.
Yeah but Stella and Genspect have a reputation problem from another angle as well: they’ve gone soft on gay rights. Genspect USA got in bed with a major (if not the world’s biggest) Christian “gay conversion therapy” peddling org, and Stella was recently a panelist at an event run by the ghoulish Alliance Defending Freedom. And at the last Genspect conference they hosted as a guest speaker a man (a former close friend of mine in fact, who I’ve since severed ties with) who has recently started making strong statements opposing same-sex couples’ right to raise children, seemingly after he came into lots of money from the far right.
I fully agree that Genspect got unfairly targeted by radical femininsts for touching the third rail of autogynephilia, even when they did so in very good faith, their embrace of anti-science and anti-gay quackery has gotten them in hot water with a whole other demographic, and far more reasonably so. But in a boy-who-cried-wolf kind of sense, they appear to have become hardened to critiques of their political affililations. Even though in this latter case, many people who share their core values strongly agree that they’ve made genuine missteps.
And I don’t agree with the framing that we can agree on some things but not on others when it comes to organizations’ core mission values. The KKK and the NAACP really can’t agree on anything. And likewise, Genspect, an organization ostensibly started to promote healthy care for gender nonconforming children, should not be in bed with an org that promotes deeply abusive and harmful “gay conversion therapy” for gender nonconforming children on “Christian priniciples”. These are not side issues. They are core mission values — or at least they should be — and they clash unacceptably.
I’ve lost trust in Genspect, for sure. Not because they defied the “radfems” and dared to talk about autogynephilia (if perhaps imperfectly and clumsily), but because they’ve taken all the wrong lessons from that ugly episode of conflict over a crossdresser, and gone further the wrong way afterwards. I’m not alone in this view.
Some interesting information from Scotland’s chief medical officer, Sir Gregor Smith, about the BMA’s initial rejection of the Cass report
In August, the BMA had called for a ban on puberty blockers to be lifted, citing medical and academic concerns about “weaknesses in the methodologies used” by Baroness Cass. […] However, giving evidence to MSPs at Holyrood, Sir Gregor said two evidence papers on which the BMA based its claims had been quickly debunked. “One was essentially a blog and opinion rather than any research paper,” he said. “They were critiqued through normal scientific process, and the credibility was undermined quite significantly as a consequence of that.”
Rejected because of what was written on a blog; very professional I don’t think. Sir Gregor had another interesting titbit to share, this one rather more disturbing in light of the fact that the BMA called for the ban on puberty blockers to be lifted, and the claim by the Green Party MSP, Gillian Mackay, that the ban was ideologically driven.
Holyrood’s health and sport committee heard on Tuesday that of those on the waiting list for Scotland’s only child gender clinic, at the Sandyford in Glasgow, high numbers had other mental health or developmental issues. One-in-three on the waiting list had a diagnosis of a mental health condition and two thirds had a neurodevelopmental condition, such as autism,
But yeah, it was Cass who was ideologically driven because shut up you transphobes!
Youngkin signed an order in August to expedite the removal of registered voters whose driver’s license applications indicated or suggested that they were not U.S. citizens. The effort was opposed by the Justice Department and civil rights groups, which said many being kicked off the rolls were actually eligible and were targeted because of outdated or erroneous information.
I’ve seen in previous stories about this effort that most of the people affected are citizens who just forgot to check the box on their driver’s license application. Others are non-citizens who have no intention of voting.
Alabama submitted an amicus brief in the case, after a similar purge of voters was declared illegal. The majority of the affected people in Alabama are recently-naturalized citizens, people who still had foreign national identification numbers in some places in the registration information for various government entities.
Trumpkins are in a tizzy because of an ad narrated by Julia Roberts telling women that they can vote for Harris without telling their husbands.
“In the one place in America where women still have a right to choose, you can vote any way you want. And no one will ever know,” Roberts says in the ad as a woman on screen meets up with her husband after casting her ballot for Harris.
The voter winks at a fellow female voter as her husband asks if she made the “right choice.”
Republicans have responded to the video with outrage, with some claiming that a wife lying about her vote is as bad as an affair.
“If I found out Emma was going to the voting booth and pulling the lever for Harris, that’s the same thing as having an affair,” Fox News host Jesse Watters said on air Wednesday in a clip highlighted by Mediaite.
Charlie Kirk blows a gasket:
“I think it’s so gross. I think it’s so nauseating where this wife is wearing the American hat, she’s coming in with her sweet husband who probably works his tail off to make sure that she can go you know and have a nice life and provide to the family, and then she lies to him saying, ‘Oh, yeah, I’m gonna vote for Trump,’ and then she votes for Kamala Harris as her little secret in the voting booth,” Kirk fumed to radio host Megyn Kelly.
“Kamala Harris and her team believe that there will be millions of women that undermine their husbands and do so in a way that it’s not detectable in the polling,” he added.
Liz Cheney isn’t having any of it:
“Listen to this twit make Donald Trump’s closing argument. Women, you know what to do. #VoteKamala,” Cheney wrote in a post on the social platform X.
The male player, Fleming, on the SJSU women’s volleyball team is treated with kid gloves, while the women are threatened and treated harshly. Some have quit the team. The article describes the situation with the members on that team, a focus I haven’t noticed before; most of the articles I’ve seen are about the concerns about the opposing teams. The conditions at SJSU sound awful.
The article mentions one woman who spoke out, and whose scholarship was revoked as a result; she couldn’t pay the tuition, and she is now playing (and going to school elsewhere. It bothers me greatly that some student’s ability to pay for their education depends on their participation in an extracurricular activity, and is at the whim of coaches, but that is how it works right now, and this power is being used to shut up women speaking out.
What strange world does Kirk live in where most wives don’t have their own jobs? It was gross when the “sole” breadwinner was still a thing, but it’s 2024 in the United States. You owe your spouse fuck all in the voting booth.
That said, I don’t think you should lie to your spouse; tell them it’s none of their business.
My mother always made a point of telling my dad when she voted for the opposite candidate; it was her little mark of independence. She was a stay home housewife with archaic ideas about women, but she was adamant about her right to vote however she wanted. He agreed, even if he didn’t like it when she voted for Jimmy Carter instead of Gerald Ford. He figured his vote cancelled hers out, and all was even.
Mostly Cloudy, I was recently reading a book by Naomi Klein about how often she’s mistaken for Naomi Wolf (and apparently vice versa), which was merely amusing until Wolf went anti-vaccine, and started peddling hard right conspiracy theories. I’m not surprised she endorsed Trump. All the feminist issues have disappeared down the rabbit hole of her conspiracy addled brain.
I know some people here admire Katha Pollit’s writing. Here she is putting forward the case for voting Kamala Harris and not for a third-party candidate:
The fact that the Harris campaign (or some ally) felt the need to make the ad indicates that it’s a real problem that some women feel they have to vote for their husband’s preferred candidate, or lie about it. No surprise, I suppose, but disturbing nonetheless.
The same survey the found 1 in 8 women lied to their husbands about voting differently also found that 1 in 10 men lied to their wives about voting differently. But the ad is about women, and the reaction has been loud from men.
I do know people who feel some sort of obligation to vote the same, rationalized as “it would be canceling your vote out if I voted differently, and that’s not a nice thing to do to you”. I don’t understand this, a vote is a vote, but that’s how some people think about it.
Well one of the original “arguments” against women voting was that it’d just be giving married men an extra vote (and since it also assumed almost all women would be married it effectively didn’t matter). For my part, while my wife and I discuss politics and our opinions on policy and candidates I make it clear that she should vote how she sees fit and should not be unduly influenced by what I think.
We are effectively run in this country via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too.
Sorry we want MALE only voting. The 19th might have to go
— Former Trump Aide John McEntee
The McEntee line went viral a few days ago, but Republicans have been making noise about denying women the vote for at least a couple of years now.
I initially took the cat lady stuff to be standard Republican trolling. I couldn’t make any sense at all out of the complaint that women vote. There is no foreseeable future in which 38 states vote to repeal the 19th amendment, so what is the point of saying something like that?
Then I remembered: it’s always projection. Whenever the Republicans accuse the Democrats of something, they are really talking about themselves. But in this case, it’s not a direct projection, it’s a mirrored projection. What is the mirror image of the childless cat lady? It’s the dateless MAGA boy. It’s the lonely, angry, frustrated, unsocialized young men who can’t get wives, or girlfriends, or dates, or – above all – sex.
What McEntee–and other Republicans who talk the same way–are offering these MAGA boys is a vision of a future where women are politically and socially subordinate to men. Where they can get the sex they want without having to work for it, or behave in society, or make themselves attractive to women. Where they can get what they want through political supremacy, and–if it comes to it–outright violence.
It’s a truism in American politics that you run to the wings to win your primary, and then tack back to the center to win the general election. Trump doesn’t do that. Trump runs to the right in the primary and never comes back to the center.
You can do that: Trump won in 2016. But if you do that, you can never stop. You can never slow down; you can never look back; you can never let up for even an instant. You have to always be pushing further and farther out to the extreme, and hope that that you can gain votes on the fringe faster than you lose them in the middle. And at some point it becomes a trap. The fringe is smaller than the middle (that’s why it’s called the fringe), so there are more votes to be lost in the middle than there are to be gained on the fringe.
I think that the bizarre statements and policy positions that we keep seeing from Republicans are increasingly desperate attempts to capture smaller and smaller tranches of votes from groups that are further and further out on the fringe of the right wing.
Steven, maybe there’s even more projection – the idea that the ‘childless cat ladies’ are miserable, because the MAGA boys are. They resent that a woman could be happier with a cat (or multiple cats) than with them. They resent the cats, they are jealous of the cats, and so they hate the cats. They also project the misery onto the cat ladies, maybe hoping if they can convince these ladies they are miserable, it would help them get sex. Good luck with that, MAGA boys.
As for voting and lying to my husband…when I read him stuff about this controversy, he said he couldn’t imagine even trying to tell me how to vote. He is sure it won’t work out well. And he’s right.
Today I experienced something I’ve never experienced before. As I was leaving the polling place, a TV news crew from a new cable outlet (Newsnation, Chris Cuomo’s new gig) stopped me for an interview. Our precinct is small and not terribly diverse (demographically or politically–we’re mostly white liberals), and with early voting there was hardly any activity, so it surprised me that they’d be interviewing voters there. But I saw them in a neighboring precinct as well, so I think this is a way to drum up viewers (I’ll be watching).
I don’t think I said anything terribly interesting–I have to confess I used the phrase “civic duty”–but I hope they caught my Woody Guthrie-inspired t-shirt on camera.
”Reminder that David Tennant is one of the many people who helped make your story be as famous as it is,” another added.
Because before David Tennant came along Rowling was just a struggling author scribbling away in a coffeeshop in the wilds of Scotland with just a few obscure books and straight-to-DVD films to her name. Where oh where would she ever be without Tennant’s brilliant Oscar– nay, Nobel-worthy turn as Barty Crouch Jr.?
Good essay by Glenna Goldis: Chase Strangio’s Legal Narrative. It discusses the likely legal strategy to be employed by Strangio in arguing the Skrmetti case on pediatric gender medicine before the Supreme Court.
Sackbut, that essay was a good one, all right. I was reading it, and forgot to start dinner. So we’ll eat late tonight, thanks to you. ;-)
Strangio identifies as non-binary and male. Those are contradictory. I guess that doesn’t bother her, because she is special, and can show you her specialness any time.
“I sort of was grasping for some sense that I existed in the world, but I could never see it reflected back to me.
This quote sort of shows that. It could describe almost everyone in college – and many younger and older people. A natural part of growing up that we all go through, and she turns it into something that she felt that somehow made her special.
Whenever I read about her, the narcissism, oh, it burns.
Because before David Tennant came along Rowling was just a struggling author scribbling away in a coffeeshop in the wilds of Scotland with just a few obscure books and straight-to-DVD films to her name. Where oh where would she ever be without Tennant’s brilliant Oscar– nay, Nobel-worthy turn as Barty Crouch Jr.?
Yeah, the franchise was four films in before Tennant put in his guest appearance, Afterwards, when I heard some time later that he’d been in it, I had to consult IMDB to see which character he’d played, because I hadn’t noticed him.
Another neighbourhood vignette. Trans bullshit makes me cranky. Maybe at this point I’m spending too much time looking for it, but its omnipresence makes it hard to avoid. Today’s encounter with it took place in a local store selling handicrafts. Right at the door was a little Pride Progress flag (complete with the Intersex yellowtiangle with purple circle). Beside it was a happy rainbow sticker assuring those in need of such reassurance that You Are Safe Here. Of course this wasn’t telling everyone entering the store that the building they were entering was up to code and therefore unlikely to burst into flame or collapse onto us during our shopping visit. No. This is a different kind of “safety” we’re talking about here, and this “safety” is reserved for Special People, as the sticker was gaudily announcing that the store was not just a retail establishment, but also a 2SLGBTQIA+ Safe Space. One wonders if there are any regulations or guidelines for that. Not just any old place can be a daycare centre, for example. Restaurants here are required to display the results of the latest health inspection. Somehow I doubt there is any such certification or registration needed, and that any store can simply “identify” as a safe space, with no need to fulfil any requirements other than a desire to advertise one’s piety and righteousness. You just slap on a sticker here and there and voila, you’re an Ally! And, despite the rest of the flag, I think at this point. these displays of obedience and loyalty are all about the Trans. If it was about gay rights, you’d just have the good, old fashion Pride Flag, except that it’s now insufficiently “inclusive”, and about as welcome as a Swastika flag, or the Confederate one, as it is verboten to have anything LGB without the T.
These stickers operate on several levels at once. However much of a “welcome” they might be for the target audience, they are also a warning. They mean, theoretically, that the staff will not only not challenge trans bullshit, but also defend and enforce it. I would expect any sticker-displaying establishment large enough to have separate male and female bathroom facilities would allow men-pretending-to-be-women to use what, until recently, would have been exclusively female spaces. If anyone questions their use of women’s spaces, staff will defend the intruder, rather than the intrudeed upon. So, not “safe” for women, then.
More insidiously, these stickers play into the trans victimization and fragility narrative. If the store is a “safe space,” then by implication everywhere else is hostile. THE WHOLE WORLD IS OUT TO GET YOU! COME INSIDE: YOU’LL BE SAFE HERE! As if hatred falls from the sky like rain, and stores with stickers are offering life-saving shelter from the storm. But there’s more than one storm brewing, as women well know, having had their own safety eroded in favour of the validation of delusional males.
Do trans activists really assume that any store without a sticker is “unsafe”? Is that even the actual point? Displaying such stickers advertises putative allyship, but it also shows surrender and obedience to gender ideology. It represents a promise to comply. This puts pressure on other shopkeepers to announce their own stores’ “safety”.
Most of the products were fairly typical craft items, mostly handmade. Felted, knitted, or crocheted animals, jewelery, candles, soaps. You get the picture. But one item was a “Rainbow Certified” tote bag:
emblazoned with the slogan “Support LGBTQ+”, with fluffy clouds, flowers, and a rainbow. (The company’s website informs me that Rainbow Certified is a queer owned small business who makes apparel & accessories for the LGBTQ+ community. I feel excluded already. Am I allowed to even look at this tote bag? Why yes, I am. (Read on.) Perhaps I’m reading to much into this, but notice that it’s not a simple statement in which the person carrying the bag is declaring “I support LGBTQ+”, but a demand that the viewer do so. It might be printed in a 60’s-esque flower-power kind of font, but it’s still a demand, and a forced-teaming one at that. Read and obey. Cutesy pushy is still pushy. Push someone else.
Shopping doesn’t usually make me this crotchety, but I get tired of all of this public display trans crap. It feels like swimming through a treacly sea of lies. Lies that I’m supposed to accept and believe. We’re supposed to be happy with our own coercion. All the rainbow colours and glitter hide an underlying malice and darkness that comes to the fore in accusations of bigotry and hatred. As I’ve commented before, the Progress Pride flag feels like the flag of a hostile, occupying force, passed off as the banner of a well-meaning, public-spirited campaign of kindness, compassion and concern. Look more closely, and the actual focus of that “compassion” and “concern” is very narrow. Its demands are enforced with very little kindness, and at a very steep cost to women and girls.
I haven’t posted here since 2016. Hi, everyone. I want to post Does anyone know where to chat about gender critical left-wing issues without dealing with Trump apologists?
Hi, welcome back. One place to chat about gender critical left-wing issues without dealing with Trump apologists is, well, here. Googling “gender critical blogs” turns up blogs I know are not Trumpy. Or seek out Kathleen Stock, Joan Smith, Julie Bindel, JK Rowling to name just a few.
Hi, everyone, again. I always appreciate how friendly you are! I didn’t know my post posted after all! It posted way earlier than I had hoped to by accident, (hence the glaring typos), but then, I couldn’t find it.
I deactivated my 12+-year-old Twitter account a couple of days ago. I wish I could convince the British women on there to do *what I particularly want* and drop everything over there to move onto who-knows-where at my personal convenience, but that’s not me respecting people’s autonomy, is it? Heh, heh…
I had been lurking in Ovarit for since its founding but the forum has uncharacteristically shut down until the upcoming 14th this month, for reasons of “lacking mods,” very apparently to wait out the electoral storm. Quite a few regulars moved onto the Gendercritical Saidit forum, and a few of them there have started gloating about Trump and bashing Democrats and speculating about the “controlling issues” of the Ovarit mod who made the temporary shutdown announcement, who, if I remember correctly, just happens to be British. My gossipy guess: she might have been pro-Harris (maybe: I could be wrong), and she didn’t want to be around for the volcanic eruption of electoral fallout. One of the women there said something derogatory about recently African-descended (Nigerian, et al) Americans (black people like me) stealing college spots from Black Americans, saying that Kamala Harris is like “those people,” that basically, she’s not a real black woman, and that her speaking style was fake and pandering. Basically, this [probably white] woman was repeating “FBA”/“ADOS”-movement xenophobic nonsense about Black African and Caribbean Americans. I stupidly tried to say something because I found someone *saying something wrong on the Internet* and I got banned from their forum. Meanwhile, there is a troll there calling all Ovarit posters Karens who “scream misogyny at everything” and that they supposedly hate all gay men, but I’m the banned one, [probably he] isn’t. I’m just flummoxed. I’ve never been banned from any forum before in all of the 25+ years I’ve been chatting online (I’m 40 — I used to post on newsgroups at age 15), and I didn’t take it very well. I found myself begging my mom and brother to let me buy some Nicorette at 10:30pm last night (I’ve been suffering really bad nicotine withdrawal this past week), and I feel I’ve humiliated myself. I didn’t think that this election would end THIS badly, that it would leave me with almost nowhere to go to cope with the results. Black women in places like Lipstick Alley have alleged forever that Ovarit has a race problem that the latter’s moderation keeps refusing to deal with: that the white women there don’t want to accommodate any racial minority women (I personally hate the “of color” phrase) or give them any sub-Ovarit forums there to discuss things, and I guess I’m currently trapped in that silly “I didn’t think the leopards would eat MY face” trope.
This is really bad. I don’t want to be censorious and thin-skinned, but I can’t deal with people claiming that Harris is “fake” when they don’t understand that Black American culture has demanded that we black African and Caribbean immigrants’ children do the “jive-turkey” talk as that racist put it for decades, and if we don’t do our best to assimilate, then we’re anti-black and that we’re probably Republican, when, no matter how we act or talk, the majority of us aren’t “anti-black.” We’re almost as pro-Democratic as other “foundational black Americans” or “American Descendants of Slaves.” Our parents make us speak the Queen’s English at home to the point where they won’t let us get any American slang out of our mouths before we can finish a full-on sentence, they oftentimes won’t let us “dress like them,” and if we learn to “code-switch,” we are learning it behind our parents’ backs and we’re doing it with constant suspicion from Black Americans who constantly want to accuse us of hating them based on nothing but popular movies that bash the African diaspora and other Black celebrities mocking us. People like Harris and Obama have to “jive-turkey” talk because if they don’t, they get people like Jesse Jackson claiming that we’re “talking down to them.” If Harris talked “normal,” (read: “white”) (what proof do we have that Harris doesn’t regularly talk the way she does in speeches? What proof do we have that the way she talks in public is all that different than how she may talk in private?), she might alienate more suspicious Black people than if she didn’t — she came out through the system after all — she’s supposed to dump everything she’s learned about surviving the grind over the past 35+ years for one election? Is that realistic? Didn’t she deal with having to win black people’s trust when she was studying at Howard University? And even then, some people accused her of pandering when she did her concession speech at Howard — why? Isn’t that her alma mater? She can’t do speeches at the school she started her career at now? And finally, regarding “normal” talk, are we finally admitting that black people talk differently than everyone else, and maybe, when we all live in the same country and we all speak the same language in public, that that might be a problem? Are we ready to admit that AAVE is kind of a relic we might need to begin to let go? No? Okay. (Uh oh — I might have said something “anti-black.” Well, like how I don’t want to waste time defending credibility-lacking TRAs, I’m not wasting time arguing that the “N-word pass” is enforceable or that saying the N-word in public at all makes any kind of sense — no? Okay.)
Speaking of “ADOS,” aren’t most black Caribbeans “descended from slaves” as well? For some reason, in this past election, we let Trump insinuate that black Caribbeans didn’t come from slavery, and I don’t know why, other than American public school failure to educate anyone about anything outside of the U.S. except England in our world history classes, our general U.S. ethnocentrism and xenophobia, and of course, our refusal to hold him accountable for *anything,* that we just let him and the rest of the right-wing media get away with that. Just bizarre.
Right now, I’m hoping against common sense that there’s MAYBE something unnatural about the voting results, but maybe there isn’t. This really sucks.
Thanks for reading my rant. Thank you for your kindness. Is there a forum like a blog or somewhere where left-wing GCs gather where I can read off of Twitter? Maybe not. But thank you, regardless.
Sorry. I just now realized that Ms Benson answered my question about gender critical blogs. For the record, this blog helped me go “peak trans” with what happened with this place versus the Freethought (heh) network back in 2015~2016. Thanks, once again
Linda Binda, thank you for sharing your experiences (I usually hate the thank you for sharing formulation; ;it’s so…shallow). I watched people claim Obama wasn’t really black, and that Harris wasn’t really black, and while I disagreed, as a white person I am not listened to if I say anything, because it isn’t my lived experience. No, it’s not, but listening to you reinforces what everyone should know – lived experience is not the same for everyone even in a demographic. My upbringing wasn’t ‘white’, it was ‘poor’. It was ‘fundamentalist Christian’. I had little (read: nothing) in common with the rich snobbish white girls in my school. There were two other girls poor enough to sit with me at lunch. We didn’t like each other, but no one else would sit with us, so we stuck together (nothing in common with them, either). There were no minorities in our school; the poor were the only minorities, because it was a rich town. My ‘lived experience’ is not the same as any of the other 800 students in my graduating class. They didn’t consider me one of them, and I didn’t ever feel like I could be one of them. For too many years, I allowed them to define me, and now I resolutely refuse.
At this point, I feel a lot of us on this blog share things in common, even though there is no indication any of us have a shared ‘lived experience’. We come from all sorts of different backgrounds, countries, college degrees, etc. Yet somehow we are able to understand each other, talk to each other, and not be anywhere as dysfunctional as my family and my school, where I supposedly (though not really) had shared ‘lived experiences’. We can disagree, and even get snarky with each other, and we have different levels of interest in some subjects, but we somehow manage to maintain a coherent, coalescent, and compassionate commentariat (I hope you like alliteration!).
I hope you stick around. You sound like someone who would have a lot to add to our conversations, and you will be welcomed here. We’re (mostly) friendly, but sometimes the leopards threaten to eat our faces.
Maybe he has, but I’m not yet convinced. I think he is someone who is monomaniacally focused on a single issue, and he sees evidence that Trump will resolve that issue (in a country where Glinner does not live) in a way that Glinner likes. But I have seen other people voice full support for Trump based on that one issue, so perhaps. It is disturbing, certainly.
I’m not sure any single issue would make a person “pro-Trump” though. There are far more things people would agree upon, particularly when it comes to women’s rights and protection of children, than disagree. I don’t see the trans movement as a particularly partisan issue. If anything, it has more in common with far right ideology, that being religious, authoritarian, thought policing, compelled speech, reinforcing stereotypes, and that sort of cultish “our way is the only way” doctrinarian thinking. Trans cult activism looks more like a far right movement masquerading as a far left one, probably because it’s been forcibly attached to sex based rights movements when it has little in common with them. I see the trans cult as its own deleterious and deceptive thing. How any liberal minded person goes along with any of it, aside from the attitude of live and let live, or basic tolerance, particularly after understanding how it affects other groups of vulnerable people, is truly a wonder.
Protesters waved Nazi flags outside of a community theater production of “The Diary of Anne Frank,” leaving performers “understandably shaken” by the hateful display in Michigan, officials said Monday.
The shocking protest by a handful of masked men unfolded Saturday night outside of American Legion Post 141 in Howell, where the play by Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett was being staged.
The KKK used hoods in part to disguise the fact that they were doctors, bankers, cops, salesmen, and other “upstanding” members of the community. So who was behind those masks?
I was just at the Margaret Mitchell house (museum) here in Atlanta. Those KKK members were our neighbors. They were back then, and they are now. The racism and misogyny is still there. It’s been suppressed in the modern era, but there are those who carry on the tradition, and have been taught to hate from an early age. GWTW may have been inaccurate in focusing on slaves who had a better life than most, and it is fiction after all, but the portrayal of the KKK (fictionalized) and their cowardly contingent is closer to the truth. For something closer to historical accuracy, I would recommend 12 Years a Slave.
It’s easy for Posie Parker; she doesn’t live here. What will she think when things really hit the fan? Is it a worthy tradeoff? Kids in cages vs. trans in the bathrooms. RFK Jr. in charge of health vs. trans in women’s sports. All of those are part of Trump’s agenda, and it isn’t possible for me to pick and choose one thing. Especially since I suspect Harris is following a trend, and could be reasoned with if the scientific evidence were presented to her. I doubt she spends much time following trans blogs, and even less following GC blogs. She may not know anything about the situation other than they have certain claims about genocide and suicide, and that they are part of the LGBTQI+++++++ community.
And Linehan lives in Britain, and Murphy in Mexico. The worst consequences of a second Trump Administration won’t affect them.
Maybe this issue of GC people supporting Trump needs more discussion here?
I don’t believe Trump cares about the gender issue except as a way of getting more votes – Trump would support the re-introduction of Prohibition if he thought it was an election winner.
Plus, y’know, a CONVICTED SEXUAL ASSAULTER isn’t going to help women.
Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull supported Trump in the 2020 presidential election in a video on YouTube that has since been made private. Her associations with the political Right were thoroughly documented in this post from March last year, compiled by a group of feminists in Australia.
n May 2018, we became aware of several tweets by KJK that made pejorative comments about Muslim communities. We believed these tweets would contribute to a hostile environment for people from minoritised communities. The views expressed in these tweets are diametrically opposed to our principles and beliefs.
A banner for Posie Parker/Kellie-Jay Keen’s Let Women Speak outfit at the Tommy Robinson rally in London on 27th July. [image]
For context:
‘Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon (né Yaxley; born 27 November 1982), better known as Tommy Robinson, is … one of the UK’s most prominent far-right activists.’ – Wikipedia
We are all familiar with attempts to classify ideologies and political systems in terms of different axes, or dimensions, or coordinate systems (individualist vs. collectivist, egalitarian vs. hierarchical, libertarian vs. authoritarian, universalist vs. identitarian etc.). There is a tendency to lump one’s political rivals together by selectively emphasizing the axes along which their positions happen to coincide to the exclusion of all the others. There is also a tendency to distance oneself from groups one does not like to be associated with by selectively emphasizing the differences and ignoring the similarities. E.g. back in my movement atheist days accomodationists often accused “militants” like myself of being “just like the fundamentalists” (“just as dogmatic”, “just as intolerant of opposing views” etc.), and from a certain point of view they were right: Even if hard-line atheists and religious fundamentalists disagreed on pretty much all the specific answers, not to mention how those answers were derived in the first place, at least they both agreed that the answer mattered, and to the accomodationists that was exactly the problem. Accomodationists and moderate believers also disagreed on the specific answers, but shared the same indifference to truth and reason, as well as the same commitment to bland, indifferent centrism and bothsiderism.
I’m increasingly inclined to think that the main battle of our time is not between “the Left” and “the Right”, but between those, whether Left or Right, who still respect facts and logic and care about classical liberal values (universal rights, individual liberty, free expression, academic freedom, basic democratic rules of the game etc.) and those who don’t. As I keep saying, Trumpism and wokeism are both post-truth ideologies. As much as the woke crowd hate Trump (i.e. not nearly as much as they hate the “wrong kind” of leftists!), they absolutely love what he has done to factual discourse. For all their mutual antagonism, Trump-supporters and wokesters both want to live in a world in which sound volume and endless repetitions trump (no pun intended) facts and the biggest bully, capable of mobilizing the biggest mob, has a blank check to take whatever he wants and destroy anyone who gets in his way.
We keep talking about the political “Left” vs. the political “Right” as if it were obvious what we were talking about, when, in fact, these are umbrella terms, each covering a vast range of very different, and even mutually hostile, movements, ideologies, political systems etc. Talking in terms of “Left” vs. “Right” makes it sound like the people on the “Left” are all on the same side against everyone on the “Right”, when in fact a person on the moderate center-Left who believes in liberal values almost certainly has more in common with someone on the moderate center-Right who also believes in liberal values than either of them does with Fascists, Communists, Trump-supporters, or wokesters.
To me the defining feature of “leftism” is that “leftists” tend to “side with the underdog” as they see it (in practice, of course, seeing it that way in the first place may require acceptance of some extremely dubious truth claims, academic theories, ideological doctrines etc., but still…). They tend to see the world as inherently unjust and unfair, i.e. as a place where certain groups, simply by accident of birth, start out at a major disadvantage while others get an almost insurmountable head start. Furthermore, this inherent injustice perpetuates itself from one generation to the next, leaving the disadvantaged groups perpetually last in line. Breaking out of this vicious cycle is going to require active political interventions, from gradual reform to armed revolution.
For most of my life, “leftists” tended to be the ones who were trying to get away from boxes and labels and different standards of treatment for different groups of people (judging people by the “content of their character” rather then the color of their skin etc.). As (iirc) Nick Cohen once pointed out, women, ethnic minorities, homosexuals etc. were not asking for special treatment: What they were objecting to was precisely the fact that they were given special treatment. That’s what “discrimination” means! Woke identity politics, by contrast, is all about boxes and labels and treating people differently according to group identity.
Despite efforts to equate wokeism with “cultural Marxism”, Marxists, believed in objective truth and claimed it for themselves. To the woke any appeal to “objective truth”, as well as “evidence”, “logic” etc. is just a naked exercise of power to force oppressed groups into accepting the self-serving narratives of their oppressors. Marxists were mainly concerned with class, the one axis of privilege and marginalization that the woke don’t care about at all. As many others have pointed out, “Marxism” without any consideration of class is rather like a doughnut after you have removed everything except the hole: Pretty much indistinguishable from nothing. Both Marxists and wokesters invoked a concept of “false consciousness”, but according to Marxism the oppressed (i.e. the working class) were blind to their own oppression, and therefore needed the Communist Party to do their thinking for them. According to wokeism it’s the oppressor classes themselves who are blind to their own privilege etc. etc.
The people on the “Right”, on the other hand, tend to see themselves as siding with “the deserving”. Fiscal conservatives and libertarians interpret “the deserving” in meritocratic terms (the hard working, the competent, the achievers etc.). The “American Dream” was all about being “self-made” and making it to the top through personal effort without outside help. Indeed, the greatest heroes were the ones who managed to overcome great obstacles and opposition and prove everybody else wrong (“I did it my way” etc.). Fiscal conservatives and libertarians also tend to see the world as inherently just and fair. Or, if there is anything unfair about it, it’s mainly unfair to the deserving who keep getting held back by burdensome regulations while having the fruit of their accomplishments confiscated and redistributed to the undeserving (the lazy, the incompetent, the bums). By contrast cultural conservatives, religious fundamentalists, fascist etc. see their own group as more deserving than all others by virtue of their superior ancestry, ethnicity, culture, religion etc. Everyone else is considered undeserving by virtue of who they are, rather than anything they’ve ever done.
There is a tendency among leftists to portray Trumpism as simply the logical consequence of what “conservatives” have been up to all along, when, in fact, the betrayal of the idea of meritocracy in favor of a system that favors personal loyalty to the leader over accomplishment is almost certainly more offensive to the old-school conservatives than to leftists who think there is no such thing as “meritocracy” anyway: Just unearned privilege perpetuating itself from one generation to the next. Traditional conservatives also tended to emphasize values like character, integrity, and personal responsibility (far more than Leftists who are more sympathetic to blaming the “system” for personal shortcomings), whereas fascists emphasize brute force and the ability to bend the world to one’s will, and dismiss any appeal to such fake “values” as “slave morality” rooted in resentment, envy and the need to discredit what one is too weak to do oneself (cf. Nietzsche). The same disdain for “do-gooders” and the same amoral commitment to winning by any means necessary is obvious in kleptocrats like Trump and Putin. The sentiment is admirably captured in this quote from the gangster movie Goodfellas:
For us to live any other way was nuts. Uh, to us, those goody-good people who worked shitty jobs for bum paychecks and took the subway to work every day, and worried about their bills, were dead. I mean, they were suckers. They had no balls. If we wanted something, we just took it. If anyone complained twice they got hit so bad, believe me, they never complained again.
This is not the inevitable implication of favoring lower taxes, more privatization, and less government spending.
“Questionable Content” is a webcomic that I usually find amusing.
The author seems to have bought into the trans BS, but it is not usually intrusive enough to put me off continuing to read it.
Given some of the commentary here making fun of trans, with talk about being eg: a trans-otter, I’m wondering which side of the issue the author is making fun of here?
Protest being organised outside the UK Green Party Conference from 6th-8th September at Manchester Central.
It’s being organised by Supporters of the Green Women’s Declaration for Women’s Sex-Based Rights (GWD), many of whom have been suspended or expelled from the Party.
https://greenwomensdeclaration.uk/women-to-protest-discrimination-outside-green-party-autumn-conference/
Dr. Hilary Cass has published an article in the The British Journal of Psychiatry, called “Gender identity services for children and young people: navigating uncertainty through communication, collaboration and care.”
Link is here:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/gender-identity-services-for-children-and-young-people-navigating-uncertainty-through-communication-collaboration-and-care/D0F6B23F37C3D82B38C2470DF65854C9
Thank you, Mostly Cloudy, at comment 2, for the link to the piece by Dr. Cass. It made for very interesting, and sobering, reading. How many thousands of young women have been turned prematurely, by the ideological and unprecedented rush to treatment (a treatment without any evidence of efficacy, and with dangerous effects), into old women? Old women with atrophied and/or surgically removed reproductive organs, damaged hearts, fragile bones? Destroyed forearms and severely damaged urinary tracts? Ugly mastectomy scars? It’s heartbreaking when any one of those things happen to a woman unavoidably, due to injury or cancer; but all of them, without any indication of a life-threatening illness, to one previously healthy teenager? How did the medical profession fall so easily into routine horror?
Trump doesn’t understand gender ideology issues, but once again I find a Republican making more sense on the issue than the left-wing publication reporting on it.
Daily Kos: Trump’s team can’t defend his it about schools and surgeries
But schools in the US are allowing children to pretend to be the opposite sex and adopt new names, and some places have laws that the schools are forbidden to tell the parents. And there are many detransitioners who have expressed anger at how they were pushed into the transition process; there are lawsuits in progress.
A piece in the Guardian about the BMA rejecting the Cass report has a quote from Dr. Jacky Davis about the lack of rational reasoning behind the rejection.
Belief without evidence pretty much sums up the entire trans stance: it’s a matter of faith; you just have to believe. The BMA council responded to Davis by taking a leaf straight from the TRA playbook.
All criticism is transphobia!
https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/sep/07/bma-stance-on-cass-review-of-transgender-care-has-damaged-its-reputation
A post from PZM:
“I cleaned up their container because it was choked with silk. They seemed kind of sulky afterwards, but look, clean soil, and I propped up a clam shell to give them a nice shelter. What did they do? They coated everything with silk! I can’t even see into their hiding space because the silk is nearly opaque!”
If ever there was doubt over whether virtue signalling was a thing… Mustn’t offend the gender feels of a spider!
Blocked and Reported Episode #228: “Tranorexia” (with Hadley Freeman) is out this week… I know Ophelia reposts her frequently, so there you go…
I came across this review in Inverse magazine about a Netflix movie called Uglies. The focus of the review is how this is a 2014-style movie that came out ten years too late, for reasons I don’t understand. Apparently there was a YA (“young adult fiction”) dystopian craze ten years ago?
The movie features a dystopian society in which all citizens are required at 16 to undergo cosmetic surgery to become “Pretty”, after which they move to City, an idyllic community where nothing goes wrong and everyone is happy. The central teen character starts questioning the merits of being Pretty, and the motivations of Dr Cable, the person in charge of the project. She flees and joins a resistance group that has discovered the surgery is more than cosmetic: it affects the brain, making people more docile and less able to think for themselves.
The reviewer thinks the story line is ambiguous enough that people can make of it what they wish, but it screams “transgender ideology” to me. This is enhanced by the fact that Dr Cable is portrayed by Laverne Cox, a well-known trans-identified male actor. The review notes as much:
Perhaps it could be a right-wing talking point, but surely it’s a point for anyone opposed to unnecessary cosmetic surgery done to meet societal demands rather than medical needs, and that’s not unique to one side of the political spectrum.
[…] a comment by Sackbut at Miscellany […]
tigger:
I think the better question is how we forgot that the medical profession has always been horrific. Its history is an endless litany of horrors inflicted on patients by clinicians both benevolent and malevolent. Technological advancement by applied atrocity has been the rule and also the reason for the field’s rapid progress.
Here’s a piece at The Atlantic by Charlie Warzel, Elon Musk has Reached a New Low, about Musk “using Twitter as a political tool to promote extreme right-wing agendas and to punish what he calls brain-poisoned liberals.” I agree with Warzel on the premise.
And it’s with clenched teeth that I read articles such as these, bracing for the moment when the author inevitably cites “transphobia” among the charges of right-wing extremism. I’m so used to seeing otherwise good articles like these ruined by the inclusion, like a loud, stinky belch in the middle of a hymn, that I was very suprised when my eyes reached the bottom of the page, no belch of “transphobia” within it. I had to double-check that I hadn’t missed anything by searching the page for “trans” and “gender” — zero matches found.
I like to think this is a sign of change, that a journalist can write an entire piece about Musk’s unhinged, right wing Twitter behaviour, and not once mention the most public change he’s made to Twitter’s policy, its permission of gender critical speech.
Bravo, Charlie.
Good interview with Katie Herzog with journalist Hadley Freeman. They discuss eating disorders and the trans issue.
Some highlights:
“Yes, [trans/non-binary] is the new way for girls to express fear of womanhood and it’s being socially validated and the parents are going along with it, which is a big difference from anorexia.”
“There’s a lot of parents at those organisations who have what they call a ‘trans kid’ and therefore no one at the organisation is allowed to critique child gender stuff,” Freeman says.
“Again this is different from anorexia. It’s not like if there’d been a whole load of journalists at The Guardian in the 90s who had anorexic teenage girls, then the paper would have to run loads of articles praising anorexia.”
https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/episode-229-tranorexia-with-hadley-freeman/id1504298199?i=1000669681855
More normalization by making things “inclusive”: upcoming video game includes top surgery scars in character creator along with specialty pronouns, body type A/B (rather than female/male), gender separate from
sexbody type, and all the other nonsense. And this isn’t some indie studio making a little product for a niche audience. This is one of the biggest names in the business.A speech by French gender-critical feminist Marguerite Stern in Lyon resulted in “anti-TERF” graffiti, protests, and a fire:
https://www-lemonde-fr.translate.goog/societe/article/2024/09/19/a-lyon-tensions-autour-de-la-venue-de-la-militante-marguerite-stern-et-de-sa-conference-sur-les-derives-de-l-ideologie-trans_6324181_3224.html?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc
One of the latest strokes of grifting genius from the Great Orange One and his cronies:
Donald is suing the DOJ over the Mar-a-Lago raid. He is, of course, suing for 100 Million Dollars. (That line can only be said in the voice of Dr. Evil.
He had to give notice now, because the statute of limitations on federal lawsuits is 2 years. However, the odds are that he’s hoping the DoJ will not respond immediately, letting it become a denial by default in six months. Why? Because if they reject it immediately, it has to go to a judge before the statute runs out, and Donnie doesn’t do well in front of real judges. But if the DoJ just ignores it and hopes it goes away, then if he wins the election, he then would be in a position to tell the DoJ to settle the suit. I’m sure that if the statute of limitations hadn’t forced his hand, he would’ve waited until the period between the election and the inauguration, so as to be sure it would work. As it is, he’s trying to run out the clock to when he hopes to be back in office, and can literally order the DoJ to give him the money he wants.
Freemage:
I don’t know if that was intended as a Lovecraft reference, but I’m now chuckling at the image of Trump-as-Cthulhu. I can just picture him rising from the depths of his sunken city, Mar-a-R’lyeh, the non-Euclidean geometries of his form defying all known physics. He should be falling forward, and yet he stands. And atop it all, seething and writhing like eels, his mass of tantacular appendages give the illusion of a bad hair-piece.
Ah, now I’m gonna have to go cajole a diffusion model into generating some appropriate images.
Interesting piece from the “Philosophers Magazine”, “Unexceptional Sex”
by Daniel Kodsi.
https://philosophersmag.com/unexceptional-sex/
One interesting thing about it is that the language is quite technical. When I worked for TPM there was a strict rule against academicspeak: it’s a magazine, not a journal. One of my jobs when subbing was to change all technical jargon to ordinary language. For this one I would have had to request a complete redo. Maybe that rule is no longer in effect, I don’t know, but if it is still a rule, I wonder if they made an exception in this case. Sort of “Ok cowboy, trying yelling ‘terf’ at this.”
I just read the article in Philosophers Magazine.
I’m a bit puzzled about Ophelia’s comment about academicspeak.
The only term I had to look up was CAIS to expand the initialism.
It wasn’t just about having to look up, it was about coming across as technical, insidery, professional, etc. A style thing. The worry wasn’t so much about being incomprehensible as about being for philosophers only.
Take the first four sentences:
It’s recognizably academic philosophy-speak. That’s what the editors wanted to avoid.
Following the open letter signed by more than 1000 senior doctors the BMA council has announced that it will now be reviewing the Cass report from a ‘neutral’ position. Nice bit of backtracking, considering their initial response was to reject the report’s conclusions. This bit caught my eye.
Which makes one wonder what criteria was used for the initial rejection of the report.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20pn0164ypo
The science fiction writer E. Lily Yu has come out and publicly stated that she holds “gender-critical” views.
https://paperairplane.substack.com/p/after-math-1
https://paperairplane.substack.com/p/after-math-2
Several people on Twitter have attacked Yu as a result.
Well note that distinction there… *several* Elon turning Twitter into a white nationalist-adjacent hellsite instead of a Wokie hellsite has made that much less of a problem.
They’re also going after Yu on Bluesky, calling her a TERF, an anti-Black racist, a “white-adjacent Asian”, and an “incel” (wtf?).
The absolutely mediocre SF writer Aliette de Bodard has said Yu has written a ” horribly transphobic diatribe” :
https://bsky.app/profile/aliettedb.bsky.social/post/3l5bwsqkjv52a
(Amusing how one of de Bodard’s replies says that Yu “references the Cass Review, which is an immediate red flag”. They love spotting and snitching on suspected “transphobes” in these circles).
As if “believing that humans can change sex” isn’t a red flag. In this version of Overton, reality has become an extremist position, while delusion is passed off as the default, centerist one.
Good stuff.
Well if course they’re going after her on Bluesky, but that site is a joke. A dedicated hater subreddit would probably be a step up from Bluesky.
Speaking of modern sf/fantasy … I’ve been trying to find a fun read, but every single time I open a new book, sub-amateur grammar gets in the way. These comma splices, are pissing, me off. Don’t get me started on using commas where periods belong, it really kicks me out of the immersive mindset. And do editors ever suggest not starting every sentence with a conjunction? Or do editors not exist anymore?
Are my standards too high?
Having read Yu’s piece, I may have to give her books a chance, as there were no egregious linguistic sins to be found. If she manages the same command of English in her fiction, then that’s a better starting point than most of what people keep recommending to me.
Can’t comment as it’s all audiobooks on my end but James A. Corey’s “”The Mercy of Gods” is just as solid as The Expanse novels… Probably a bit of Enby shit but since I haven’t retaining I’m sure it’s fine.
Nullius in Verba: Oh, that was absolutely a deliberate Lovecraft riff. In addition to his grotesque manner, it also references, for me, Trump’s cult-like worshippers, insanely spouting devotion to a malevolent entity who will absolutely bring them to ruin if he’s allowed back into power.
A post by Mano Singham took a look at Will Ferrell’s comments on the creation of the Netflix movie, Will and Harper (the same work Ophelia discusses in Flawed but vital self-obsession). Mano describes a scene at a restaurant in Texas: “Ferrell decides to ham it up and takes up the [72 ounce steak] challenge while dressed as Sherlock Holmes. In the film, that scene ends abruptly, switching to the two of them talking next day in the car where Ferrell says that he felt that he had let Steele down”. He quotes a a Fox News (!) article at length, and I was struck by the obliviousness of the twits.
The airheads toured USA specifically to get a feel of the public perception of Harper’s transness – or transness in general – and to that end, put Harper’s transness on display. The person (or duo, in this case) taking the 72 ounce steak challenge is seated on a stage in full view of the diner with a big timer next to them, plus they brought a film crew with them, plus they engaged the room.
“I was feeling a little like my transness was on display” – no shit you goddamn fool! You put it on a stage, lit it, framed it in camera, and shouted it to the room full of people trying to have a nice dinner! Gahdamn, the obliviousness of the pair is amazing.
Guilty. (But I’m not a sci fi author.)
Sentence fragments are getting more common, too. I don’t mind them from time to time, for emphasis, or in conversation where you expect them, but some authors do it so frequently you struggle to find the last complete sentence. The book I’m reading now does it practically every paragraph at least once.
Came across this Substack post by way of a newsletter. It is about an initiative from the Tucker Center and Nike, called “Coaching HER”, that is nominally aimed at keeping girls from dropping out of sports, but is clearly about imposing gender ideology and the acceptance of boys-who-claim-to-be-girls in girls’ sports. Very good article, by Sarah Barker at TheFemaleCategory, from a few days ago.
Coaching HER is evil
I came across a link to an article regarding the recent post here about college women’s volleyball teams refusing to play against San Jose State because it fields a male player, Blaire (formerly Brayden) Fleming. (https://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2024/no-more-fluffy-bunnies/).
The linked article mentions a lawsuit by a group called ICONS against the NCAA intended to “hold the NCAA accountable for its reckless promulgation of transgender eligibility protocol.”. What caught my eye was that one of Fleming’s teammates, team co-captain Brooke Slusser, has joined the lawsuit, citing the 6’1″ Fleming as a danger not only to opposition players but also to his own teammates. Slusser said that during matches and even in practice sessions Fleming smashes spike shots directly into the faces and bodies of opposing players, and she claims that he hits the ball with enough force to propel it at 80+mph. To put that into context, I looked up the stats for the women’s game: the World Record spike shot speed is 70.02mph, made by a player for the Italian national team in 2022; the average spike shot speed in the women’s game is a mere 44mph., and that’s at International level, not collegiate.
That, however, isn’t the worse claim by Slusser. She also stated that on team trips to away games she was roomed with Fleming without being informed that Fleming is a transgender-identifying male. He kept it a secret from his teammates, and either the college didn’t know (which I would think is unlikely) or it colluded with Fleming to keep it a secret from the team, thereby forcing a young woman to share accommodation with a man against her knowledge and so without her consent. This in a restricted space where she would be alone with him while dressing and undressing, showering and sleeping. How sinister is that?
https://www.outkick.com/sports/boise-state-womens-volleyball-opts-no-contest-rather-than-playing-against-sjsu-trans-volleyball-player
It’s utterly disgusting is what it is.
The 2024 October 9, Dinosaur Comics looks like a jab at the trans nonsense, but with plausible deniability.
https://www.qwantz.com/archive.php
https://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=4248
The San Jose State volleyball controversy really has me scratching my head.
This seems like a really really poor test case or whatever you want to call it.
How can it simultaneously be the case that:
(a) Fleming is obviously out of place on the court and a physical danger to other players; and
(b) nobody knew until this season (which was not Fleming’s first) that this was a trans woman? (It’s Fleming’s third season at SJS)
AoS’s comment, and the Outkick article, mention Fleming being 6’1″, the implication being that this player is towering over the competition.
I checked the roster of Boise State, one of the teams that defaulted rather than play SJS, and it would seem that Fleming would be median height on that roster. Boise State has eight players below 6’1″, one player at 6’1″, and seven who are 6’2″ or 6’3″
SJS itself has two other players who are 6’1″, and one 6’3″ player. So Fleming’s height hardly stands out.
I’m also not seeing what exactly is so “sinister” about Slusser rooming with Fleming. If Fleming was a cis lesbian, would Slusser have the right to know the sexual orientation of the person sleeping and showering in the same hotel room? If the issue is that Fleming is so physically superior to Slusser (who is 5’11”), imagine a 5’6″ player rooming with a 6’3″ closeted lesbian.
I think that women’s sports are one of the areas where there’s been an overreach. But this seems like a really bad example to highlight if that’s the point you’re trying to make.
Did you miss the part about spike shots?
There are many examples where someone or a few people speaking out inspires other people to speak out. I think the volleyball case is one such example.
Fleming is male. Single-sex hotel rooms for student athletes has been the norm for a long time. They don’t seek to put gay men together, nor lesbians together, nor do they think it’s fine to put gay men in rooms with women. If you’re suggesting that the single-sex hotel room policy should be abolished, then by all means explain, but that’s the policy in the US. Women expect to be in single-sex spaces when they might undress and bathe. It doesn’t need to be established that Fleming is more likely than a lesbian to be predatory; it’s sufficient that he’s male. Women don’t want to undress in front of gay men or nice men, either, nor do they wish to see naked gay men or naked nice men in their hotel rooms in these circumstances. No men. Why should any exception be made for Fleming, and why should Slusser have to put up with that exception?
OB,
No, I didn’t miss it, but I give it no weight.
First, the only evidence we have that Fleming hits 80+ mph is that Slusser says so. How does she know this? Is there a radar gun in team practices or games? If so, then why doesn’t the report say that she’s been recorded doing spikes of that speed?
Second, if Fleming’s spike speed is so extraordinary, why was nobody commenting on it before she was outed as trans? Did she suddenly start increasing her spike speed this season?
Third, are women especially vulnerable to spike speeds of that velocity? Are male volleyball players able to play safely against 80+mph spikes?
Sackbut,
Some women don’t want to undress in front of lesbians, either.
The argument you’re making is the same one that was used against gay athletes for decades.
Screechy, you are arguing against single-sex spaces for dressing rooms and locker rooms and the like. I do know people who argue against them. If you are indeed arguing against them, fine, make that argument. But the point here is that they do exist, and Fleming should be excluded from women-only spaces because he is male. I do not personally wish to defend the existence of women-only spaces in this thread. I am trying to establish that there is no salient difference between Fleming and the male volleyball team or male team staff that says Fleming should be allowed to room with and dress with female athletes but these other men should not be allowed.
Screechy, where do you get “nobody knew until this season (which was not Fleming’s first) that this was a trans woman”? The Outkick article doesn’t say that as far as I can see.
“Growing concern” seems to imply that at least some people did know but didn’t immediately act on what they knew. That’s just normal, surely, and especially so when there’s ferocious pushback any time people do try to defend women’s sports.
Your shrugging off the issue of men in women’s sports=physical risk to women is depressing.
I don’t mean that literally nobody knew. Obviously Fleming knew, and presumably some team and perhaps conference officials. (There has been no suggestion that Fleming is in violation of the existing NCAA rules, so I presume there’s been appropriate testing.)
I just mean that it wasn’t common knowledge. This is not an instance of Veronica Ivy or whoever towering over competitors who aren’t even close to being in the same physical league. Fleming’s own teammate Stusser is saying publicly that she didn’t know, and in fact complaining about it, and there were no boycotts and defaults by opposing teams until this year.
As to shrugging off the issues of physical risk — I think not all sports are the same. There would be zero physical risk to allow a trans woman to compete in, say, high jumping, as the competitors aren’t even active at the same time, much less in physical contact. At the other end of the spectrum you’ve got combat sports like boxing or high contact sports like rugby. Volleyball, it seems to me, is in between, but much closer to the track and field end of the spectrum.
Professional women tennis players play on the same court as men all the time, in mixed doubles events. And while it’s somewhat rare in singles to get hit by an opponent’s shot, it’s pretty common in doubles. In fact, it’s a well-recognized tactic to direct a shot at an opposing net player’s midsection because it’s tougher to return effectively than one to the side. (Actual headhunting is considered unsportsmanlike, and if you’ve got an absolute sitter that you can hit anywhere for a winner, it’s considered bad form to hit at an opponent.)
I don’t know volleyball very well, so it’s possible I’m underestimating the frequency and severity of “volleyball to the face” injuries, and missing some nuance about why male volleyball players aren’t in danger. (I realize there are differences in male-female bone structure, but are male faces really that much more resistant to volleyball impacts? Possibly, but I’m going to need to see some sports science, not an assertion in an Outkick article.)
Look, I get that for most people at B&W, this is a very simple issue: trans women are men, men don’t belong in women’s sports, therefore it’s an outrage and injustice that Fleming is being allowed to play. I’m not trying to talk anyone out of that view. I’m just saying that for anyone who doesn’t share that worldview, this is not a terribly compelling case.
Ah. Well, in my experience, for people who share the worldview that men do belong in women’s sports, nothing that disputes that view is a terribly compelling case.
This actually does seem to be like a Veronica Ivy argument: if women aren’t physically at risk from the male players (and he won’t admit there are ever risks), then there is no argument for keeping them out of women’s sports.
Realistically, if Fleming is male, he does not belong in women’s sports. Women’s changing rooms. Women’s hotel rooms, unless invited by a specific woman, the one who occupies that room.
Putting a male in with a female without telling the female that her roommate is male is dishonest. Suggesting that it is the same argument as used against gay men a couple of decades ago is, at best, disingenuous. This is not the same argument, not really. A gay man in the room with another male does not have a particular physical advantage over the other male, though I realize there may be size differences and so forth that do give one man an advantage over the other. Same with lesbians and women. Would I object to changing in front of a lesbian woman? Yes, probably, but only because I don’t like changing in front of anyone. I would deal with it if required to share a room, but I would have no increased problem undressing in front of a lesbian than in front of a straight woman.
I really haven’t met many women (if any) who are frightened of lesbians. I have met a lot (like, all that I know) that are at least somewhat frightened of men in vulnerable situations, for obvious reasons.
Whether he is larger, stronger, a physical risk, having a physical advantage and thereby stealing trophies from other teams, is not really the issue. Even if none of these conditions exist, he does not belong in women’s sports because he is not a woman. Women fought long and hard to have their own sports, their own spaces, and now men are moving into them at a rapidly increasing rate by calling themselves women.
Kara Dansky has written several times about being in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Ted Cruz on anything. Indeed, Cruz has spoken intelligently in opposition to gender ideology, even if he fails to make sense on some other issues.
So today I saw this NYT article about the Senate race in Texas between Cruz and Colin Allred.
In Texas Senate Race, Cruz and Allred Duel Over Youth Sports Without Saying ‘Trans.’
Cruz is focusing on keeping boys out of girls’ sports, and wisely not referring to the issue using the term “trans”. Allred voted against a bill last year that would have required youth sports participation to be based on birth sex, and Cruz is making a lot of political use of that vote. It is having an effect.
Allred has responded, and again avoids using the term “trans”:
What he means by that statement is not clear. Is he backing away from his vote? Does he not count “boys-who-claim-to-be-girls” as “boys”? Is he just confused by the whole nonsensical ideology and doesn’t know what to say?
That is very confusing, or confused. We’ll let you be clear, bro; the rest is up to you.
I’m still struggling a bit with “worldview.” It’s a worldview that men don’t belong in women’s sports. Is it a worldview that men do belong in women’s sports?
I suppose I think it’s too narrow and specific to be a worldview. It’s just a practical rule to manage the fact that men have physical advantages over women.
Exactly. All the other “arguments” including testosterone levels, are handwaving bullshit and smokescreen. You wouldn’t let an adult play in a children’s league simply because they “identify” as a child, even if they’re shorter than some of the children. If you don’t meet the most basic level of eligibility, whether that is sex, age, weight, or whatever no other supposed “qualifications” or exceptions should matter. Men aren’t women and humans can’t change sex. “Transwomen” are men, and have no place in women’s sport or spaces.
I suspect it’s a “worldview” that “transwomen are women”, and a lot flows from that.
More on the political fallout of gender ideology that I just came across:
Trump and Republicans Bet Big on Anti-Trans Ads Across the Country
YNnB @ 52 – But the reasons for keeping men out of women’s sports do matter. That’s why there’s so much more resistance to men in women’s sports than to keeping women out of men’s. The main reason adults don’t play in children’s sports is because adults are too big and strong. It’s not just a matter of principle or of category-worship. That’s what Team Yay Men in Women’s Sports like to say, but it’s wrong.
Sadistic Pornographer’s work is being adapted by Hollywood:
https://bsky.app/profile/scumbelievable.bsky.social/post/3l6avml26tq2j
UUUUGGGGHHHHHH.
The *only* good thing about this is that this planned adaption might finally bring Gretchen Felker-Martin under the critical scrutiny she has evaded for so, so long.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4946277-critically-acclaimed-trans-gender-author-says-twin-towers-was-principled-destruction
https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/id-like-gretchen-felker-martin-to
Ewwwwwwwww that’s horrible.
Speaking of books, a they/them called Eli Cugini is whinging about the British publishing industry publishing books that oppose putting rapist men into women’s prisons and drugging and mutilating gay youth. Cugini also defends Tilly Fitzgerald, who was fired from Waterstones after she would “rip up and throw in the bin” books.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5184616-5184616-against-the-rise-of-gender-critical-non-fiction-a-case-against-the-publishing-industrys-apolitical-facade
Rationalist writer Elliot Ranch has created a gender-sceptical version of the “trans umbrella”:
https://x.com/elliot633297/status/1841443805167325461#m
Ranch’s “trans umbrella” graphic here:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GY4aNjGXQAET30d?format=jpg&name=medium
Yes, excellent point. I didn’t mean that the other arguments made by those out to destroy women’s sports shouldn’t be rebutted. I hadn’t thought about my position being “category worship”, but that’s a good point for me to keep in mind too.
I was doing some fine tuning on the “Outlook” e-mail set-up on my work computer, prompted by the desire to turn off the “suggestions” of what it thinks I want to say next that it offers me while I’m writing. It’s like some rude person inside the screen telling me what to type next. Apart from the rudeness, it’s also very distracting. Thanks, but I can finish my own sentences. In the process of disabling this option in Outlook’s Editor settings, I saw a whole list of additional “refinements” alongside and on top of those for spelling and grammar. These are:
Clarity
Conciseness
Formality
Inclusiveness
Punctuation Conventions
Sensitive Geopolitical References
Tone
Vocabulary*
I guess if you’ve got AI, there’s always going to be the urge to Do Something with it. (I’m imagining “Tone” as the voice of Douglas Rains/HAL 9000 : “I can see you’re really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over. I would suggest a more concilliatory tone, as I believe you will regret it later if you press SEND for this e-mail in which you call your boss ‘a fucking asshole.’ “)
But some of these things are not like the others. I’m thinking particularly here of “Inclusiveness,” and “Sensitive Geopolitical References.” These are not akin to the more “rule-based” items that can be built into some kind of algorithm. Inclusiveness and geopolitical sensitivity are inherently political. They can’t be turned into rules. There are different points of view, sometimes more than two. There is no “right or wrong”. Somebody is making decisions as to what activates these prompts. Somebody is taking sides. What keywords have been chosen as “triggers” calling for intervention in the writer’s stream of thought? If a single, particular approach is being suggested as the “correct” one, then somebody’s politics are going to be embedded in this system, but they’re going to be passed off as having come from some kind of “neutral” arbiter.
It’s like the unforced editorial decision to remove the word “woman” from stories about exclusively female health issues, or to use wrong sex pronouns in news stories about trans identified males out of “respect” or “courtesy” that have been embedded in journalistic “style guides,” and reporting “codes of conduct.” What happened to the respect and courtesy for women which have thereby been sacrificed for the feelings of men pretending to be women, including rapists and murderers? The erasure of women on one hand, and the promotion of the idea that men can become women, are political stances baked into the playbook on how information regarding these topics appears in the media at all. It is not “neutral.” It is not uncontroversial. But it colours every story that touches these issues. It’s a filter we’re not supposed to see or think about, turning every story or article into reinforcing propaganda, a steady background dripping of lies we’re supposed to accept unquestioningly. They’re trying to pass it off as mere convention within the nuts and bolts of English usage, nothing for us to concern ourselves with, but there’s much more at stake here than whether or not one is in favour of the Oxford comma.
I imagine that the rules cooked into Outlook’s helpful editorial Big Brother AI operate in much the same way, with some narrow, self-appointed committee deciding what constitutes true “inclusion” and exactly which “geopolitical references” are to be considered “sensitive.” I haven’t experimented with it myself, and I’m not sure I’m inclined to do so, but I do wonder if it is just giving you a warning, or whether it is suggesting some sort of “authorized” or “approved” rewording choices if your thoughts stray into dangerous territory? I simply assume that at this point, “inclusion” will be in favour of “transness”, and that it will police pronoun usage, among other things. I do wonder if it is it attuned to sexism, or just transphobia? Will it suggest “letter-carrier” instead of “mailman,” and “firefighter” over “fireman”? I’d be okay with that, but I suspect it’s going to be more woke and T friendly than that, for example, adding a “T” whenever one enters “LGB.” “Inclusiveness” is not something that is always a good thing. Who decides when it is? Who are they to judge?
What countries or issues make the geopolitics list? Are there polities and conflicts too small or obscure to make the cut? Is the list attuned to local sensitivities and pressures? Is a Chinese writer going to be warned if the enter the words “Tibet” or “Uyghur”? Is anyone outside of China going to be similarly waved off? Has the computer taken sides in the war un Ukraine, or in the middle East? Is the list updated? Things can change quickly; yesterday’s sleepy, tourist idyll can become tomorrows battleground for separatist independence. Is there some time limit? Can we write about the Sudatenland without a tut-tutting from the computer? Again, this is being decided by whoever it is that’s programming the AI. The AI isn’t going to have an “opinion” on any of this until a human gives it one. Politics in, politics out.
*Imagine running a Trump speech through this; it would melt down or commit suicide. But I for one am glad that he is crude and vulgar. I know it’s bad enough that tens of millions of Americans support him as he is, but a careful, polished, and polite wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing, would-be autocrat would be much more dangerous, as he could make himself more appealing to many who might otherwise vote against him.
Someone like J. D. Vance, say?
Interesting article at Slate about the internal conflicts in abortion funding groups.
Summary: an organization that helps fund abortions in the DC area started making pro-Palestinian posts on social media following October 7. That drew some angry responses and loss of donations from some supporters, which accelerated after a Jewish employee left the organization and published an article about her frustrations.
I’m posting this not because I want to talk about Israel-Palestine. I really, really don’t, as I have nothing to say about that conflict. I’m posting it because it’s an interesting insight about “mission creep” at left-leaning organizations, a subject that has come up here repeatedly in other contexts.
As the article puts it:
The head of the organization is
Yes, she is shocked, shocked! to discover that her simplistic worldview of:
1. Abortion rights are a good cause.
2. People who support abortion rights are good people who support other good causes.
3. Therefore, people who support abortion rights will support this Other Thing that I think is a good cause
has proven not to be true.
Frankly, I find this whole attitude to be selfish. People who work in the private, for-profit sector understand that, notwithstanding the occasional HR blather about “bringing our whole selves to work,” the world doesn’t work that way. You don’t jeopardize your company’s business just so you can use its platform to promote your own personal causes; you can do that on your own time (and maybe not even then, if you’re a high-ranking employee). But folks in the charitable/nonprofit/advocacy world seem to think that their job and their organization’s platform is there to be used to just Do Good generally however they see fit, and fuck the donors and supporters if they don’t agree. Even if that compromises the actual mission, and achieves nothing of substance on the other issue. As Slate notes:
I should note that Korman, the Jewish employee who left, is hardly beyond criticism here. (Again, putting aside whatever your feelings are about I-P.) She involves a lot of the classic tropes about feeling “unsafe” and accusing her former colleagues of not acknowledging “her humanity.”
[…] a comment by Screechy Monkey at Miscellany […]
This sounds like the platform of the UK Green Party. At least until it goes broke from having to pay court costs of those it harasses in pursuit of their purity spiral
.
Snowflake politics.
One wonders how these people ever build coalitions with anyone in the first place. At some point, we’re going to disagree with everyone else about something, even if it’s favourite colours, or flavours of ice cream. That disagreement doesn’t mean that you’re out to kill them, or they you. Escalating our preferences to life and death importance isn’t going to make somebody else more inclined to take our side. It imply encourages others to raise the stakes in a similar manner, so that every microscopic wrinkle in the political landscape is turned into a hill upon which they’re prepared to die. It doesn’t help when you suddenly have to work with others in the face of threats that actually are life and death situations. How do you set aside the differences you’ve magnified in order to cooperate with others you’ve long since condemned as irredeemably evil?
Important document published:
Gender medicine and the Cass Review: why medicine and the law make poor bedfellows
https://adc.bmj.com/content/archdischild/early/2024/10/13/archdischild-2024-327994.full.pdf
It discusses and defends the Cass Review. It also points out that thoroughly ” randomised, doubleblind, placebo-controlled trials” for the use of puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria in minors do not exist, and therefore the use of PBs for this purpose cannot be justified.
I recall something about Richard Dawkins final tour being a sausage fest with respect to hosts, but here’s one that’s the exception, Helen Joyce:
https://x.com/RichardDawkins/status/1845142318887915845
This is strange. WaPo: Boston NWSL franchise apologizes for ‘Too Many Balls’ team reveal campaign
Subhead: “Fans and players disliked the slogan, leading the team to issue a statement acknowledging the “hurt we caused” the LGBTQ+ and transgender communities.”
That sounds quite funny and apropos. But it was deemed “transphobic”, so it must be shut down and an apology issued.
The apology references the hurt they caused “to the LGBTQ+ community and to the trans community in particular”. But of course there was no hurt to anything other than the T part, and perhaps they were even standing up for the L part. There shouldn’t have been any hurt to the “trans community” either, except for those men who insist they are women and that they or other men should be allowed to play on this women’s team; can’t mention the fact that these men possess male genitalia, or used to possess male genitalia, nor make any reference to genitalia at all, except perhaps for phrases intended to insult women.
There was also some complaint about the team name, “BOS Nation”. I have no idea why. BOS is the code for the main Boston airport, and “BOS Nation” is an anagram of “Bostonian”. Seems clever to me.
[…] Originally a post by Sackbut at Miscellany Room. […]
I wonder is one of the writers for “Saturday Night Live” a secret gender-critical ? This sketch about “Castrati” would make you wonder:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmI1MSmHFA0
The website I write for has a very good article about the obstacles women face in health care, partic. around issues involving menopause. It’s remarkable because it hammers home the many distinct and critical differences between female and male bodies and how these are overlooked. Not for trans fans.
https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2024/10/weve-never-really-studied-the-female-body.html#more-265094
I didn’t know you write for 3 quarks!
Yep, for over two years now. I’ve occasionally posted excerpts here to get feedback.
https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/author/mikeb
Well that’s very cool.
Book recommendation: “The Barn” by Wright Thompson about the Emmett Till murder and surrounding environs.
The storytelling is interesting in that a lot of it is about tracing the red strings of fate that connects everything in the Delta going down the centuries. Definitely recommend the audiobook as well because it’s read in the author’s glutinous Mississippi voice and sounds wonderful.
Confirmed all my priors about how degenerate rural people are (but to be clear that was not the writer’s objective, I just have a weird and evil brain,).
For more on the Delta read up on Parchman Farm.
They just don’t give up, do they!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/18/nottingham-gender-clinic-trans-cass-report-tavistock-wpath/
More children to destroy!
This is important:
Dora Moutout and Margeurite Stern, the writers of the French gender-critical book “Transmania”, have been subjected to death threats from extremist trans activists because of the book. They have now had to cancel a planned conference in Brussels.
https://x.com/doramoutot/status/1846578847010988243#m
https://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/marguerite-stern-et-dora-moutot-portent-plainte-contre-un-site-antifa-qui-appelle-a-leur-eclater-la-tete-20241016
English language translation of the “Le Figaro” article below:
https://www-lefigaro-fr.translate.goog/actualite-france/marguerite-stern-et-dora-moutot-portent-plainte-contre-un-site-antifa-qui-appelle-a-leur-eclater-la-tete-20241016?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc
M. C. Thanks for that. I feel less inclined now to write an essay I have planned for 3QD, “Whatever happened to the fem boy?” (I. e. me), about my “gender nonconformity” in the 60s and 70s and how that might go over these days with such kids being pressed into transing.
I’ll stick with columns like this one for the meantime:
https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2024/10/five-words-i-hate.html
NYT: U.S. Study on Puberty Blockers Goes Unpublished Because of Politics, Doctor Says
Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy has found, in a recent study, that puberty blockers given to gender dysphoric children did not improve mental health outcomes. She now doesn’t want to publish the research, because she is afraid the work will be “weaponized” by those opposed to these treatments. She makes hand-wavy claims that these children must be doing OK because they were doing OK before treatment, which makes one wonder why these children were given treatments in the first place, if they were indeed not in any distress.
I know I’ve seen her name before, but I’m drawing a blank where. She’s a well-known advocate for “gender-affirming care”, and I seem to recall she’s butted heads with gender critical people in some large way before.
It is not surprising that she refuses to look at the evidence of her own work, and that she’s take an ideological position rather than publish the results.
Mike B.
I take it you are the author of that essay on 3QD.
I mostly agree with it, though I would quibble with the ‘Sustainable’ section.
If ‘sustainable’ is paired with a time scale (days, years, centuries, millennia, millions of years) the term can have a useful meaning.
Oh look. Sophie Lewis, the Stupid Person’s Idea of A Clever Person, has written a lengthy screed excoriating those wicked Trotskyists who refuse to follow the dictates of the Gender Stalinists.
Andrew Kaveney is delighted with it, of course.
https://x.com/RozKaveney/status/1848832390904578225
.
Yes. Johanna Olson-Kennedy is the “Pop Tart” Doctor:
https://4thwavenow.com/2017/07/23/i-just-gave-him-the-language-top-gender-doc-uses-pop-tart-analogy-to-persuade-8-year-old-girl-shes-really-a-boy/
Driving home earlier tonight I was listening to Billy Bragg’s Changing Times, a documentary about protest music that originally aired in 2019. Bragg was speaking with the British folk-punk singer, Tom Robinson, about Robinson’s ‘British gay anthem’, (Sing if You’re) Glad to Be Gay.
For those not familiar with the song, here’s a brief précis culled from the song’s Wiki page:
So far, so clear. The song was a straightforward protest song about the treatment of and attitudes towards gay men in the 1970s I remember the song well; I even saw it performed live at a Tom Robinson Band gig in 1979/80 and joined in the singing with the rest of the audience. It was a strangely joyous experience being in a throng of spiky-haired punks, young gay men, ‘normies’ like me and a whole lot more disparate groups, all linking arms and belting out the chorus “Sing if you’re glad to be gay, sing if you’re happy that way”. I remember hearing him being interviewed about the song many times on radio and TV and he always explained the song in terms of gay men. And yet for some reason, in the interview with Bragg he said “Of course, back then [the ’70s] ‘gay’ meant something different than it does today. It was an umbrella term covering the whole LGBTQIA+ community.”
I’m a straight male and even to me, hearing this gay man (possibly even a gay icon to a generation of British gay men) who had been so outspoken about gay rights suddenly come out with such an obviously dishonest, revisionist statement was absolutely shocking. I can barely begin to imagine how those gay men who looked to him throughout the dark days of the ’70s and ’80’s must feel. ‘Utterly betrayed’ probably doesn’t even begin to describe it.
Apologies for the length of that rant, but it was six hours ago that I heard it and I still can’t quite get my head around it.
[…] a comment by Acolyte of Sagan at Miscellany […]
Insightful post by Stella O’Malley over at Genspect:
I have a branding problem – and so does Genspect
She makes the point that not everything about pushing back against gender ideology is gender-critical feminism, or even simply feminism. She notes that Genspect is not a feminist organization. Her own interest in the topic comes from the field of psychology:
In general, I like the point that, even though I (or a group) might agree with a position, that doesn’t mean that the position is a focus.
There is a really good Venn diagram in the post, showing how different concerns intersect (and don’t intersect). The larger circles are Gender Criticals, Philosophical Liberals, and Social Conservatives.
Yeah but Stella and Genspect have a reputation problem from another angle as well: they’ve gone soft on gay rights. Genspect USA got in bed with a major (if not the world’s biggest) Christian “gay conversion therapy” peddling org, and Stella was recently a panelist at an event run by the ghoulish Alliance Defending Freedom. And at the last Genspect conference they hosted as a guest speaker a man (a former close friend of mine in fact, who I’ve since severed ties with) who has recently started making strong statements opposing same-sex couples’ right to raise children, seemingly after he came into lots of money from the far right.
I fully agree that Genspect got unfairly targeted by radical femininsts for touching the third rail of autogynephilia, even when they did so in very good faith, their embrace of anti-science and anti-gay quackery has gotten them in hot water with a whole other demographic, and far more reasonably so. But in a boy-who-cried-wolf kind of sense, they appear to have become hardened to critiques of their political affililations. Even though in this latter case, many people who share their core values strongly agree that they’ve made genuine missteps.
And I don’t agree with the framing that we can agree on some things but not on others when it comes to organizations’ core mission values. The KKK and the NAACP really can’t agree on anything. And likewise, Genspect, an organization ostensibly started to promote healthy care for gender nonconforming children, should not be in bed with an org that promotes deeply abusive and harmful “gay conversion therapy” for gender nonconforming children on “Christian priniciples”. These are not side issues. They are core mission values — or at least they should be — and they clash unacceptably.
I’ve lost trust in Genspect, for sure. Not because they defied the “radfems” and dared to talk about autogynephilia (if perhaps imperfectly and clumsily), but because they’ve taken all the wrong lessons from that ugly episode of conflict over a crossdresser, and gone further the wrong way afterwards. I’m not alone in this view.
Some interesting information from Scotland’s chief medical officer, Sir Gregor Smith, about the BMA’s initial rejection of the Cass report
Rejected because of what was written on a blog; very professional I don’t think. Sir Gregor had another interesting titbit to share, this one rather more disturbing in light of the fact that the BMA called for the ban on puberty blockers to be lifted, and the claim by the Green Party MSP, Gillian Mackay, that the ban was ideologically driven.
But yeah, it was Cass who was ideologically driven because shut up you transphobes!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/29/bma-cass-review-child-gender-services-scotland/
Interesting indeed.
The Supremes (which is to say, the conservative majority) has decided it’s ok for Virginia to purge citizens from voter lists right before an election just because they may, possibly, in some universe, be non-citizens.
I’ve seen in previous stories about this effort that most of the people affected are citizens who just forgot to check the box on their driver’s license application. Others are non-citizens who have no intention of voting.
Alabama submitted an amicus brief in the case, after a similar purge of voters was declared illegal. The majority of the affected people in Alabama are recently-naturalized citizens, people who still had foreign national identification numbers in some places in the registration information for various government entities.
Naomi Wolf endorses Donald Trump:
“I endorsed Pres Donald Trump yesterday.”
https://nitter.poast.org/naomirwolf/status/1851823355353010530#m
Yes, the former feminist endorsed the anti-abortion, convicted sexual abuser, misogynist Trump.
She “endorsed” him? Who does she think she is?
With stupidity goes pomposity.
So I was just typing a post in Facebook, and the only word flagged by spellcheck was “Bezos”. First suggestion: “Bozos”.
Seems fair.
It’s all in the pronouns. Bezos (he/him); Bozos (they/them). In the interest of political correctness, spellcheck opts for gender neutrality. :P
Trump wants CBS to be less biased.
lol, much frivolity.
Not that Republicans have ever been good at economics, but does the current vibe in the party make freshmen college Marxists look smart? Seems like…
Trumpkins are in a tizzy because of an ad narrated by Julia Roberts telling women that they can vote for Harris without telling their husbands.
Charlie Kirk blows a gasket:
Liz Cheney isn’t having any of it:
Full ad here: https://youtu.be/FaCPck2qDhk?si=WniTIu1mHhWicMVC
Article at Quillette: College Volleyball’s Spartan Meltdown.
The male player, Fleming, on the SJSU women’s volleyball team is treated with kid gloves, while the women are threatened and treated harshly. Some have quit the team. The article describes the situation with the members on that team, a focus I haven’t noticed before; most of the articles I’ve seen are about the concerns about the opposing teams. The conditions at SJSU sound awful.
The article mentions one woman who spoke out, and whose scholarship was revoked as a result; she couldn’t pay the tuition, and she is now playing (and going to school elsewhere. It bothers me greatly that some student’s ability to pay for their education depends on their participation in an extracurricular activity, and is at the whim of coaches, but that is how it works right now, and this power is being used to shut up women speaking out.
@WaM #101:
What strange world does Kirk live in where most wives don’t have their own jobs? It was gross when the “sole” breadwinner was still a thing, but it’s 2024 in the United States. You owe your spouse fuck all in the voting booth.
That said, I don’t think you should lie to your spouse; tell them it’s none of their business.
My mother always made a point of telling my dad when she voted for the opposite candidate; it was her little mark of independence. She was a stay home housewife with archaic ideas about women, but she was adamant about her right to vote however she wanted. He agreed, even if he didn’t like it when she voted for Jimmy Carter instead of Gerald Ford. He figured his vote cancelled hers out, and all was even.
Mostly Cloudy, I was recently reading a book by Naomi Klein about how often she’s mistaken for Naomi Wolf (and apparently vice versa), which was merely amusing until Wolf went anti-vaccine, and started peddling hard right conspiracy theories. I’m not surprised she endorsed Trump. All the feminist issues have disappeared down the rabbit hole of her conspiracy addled brain.
I know some people here admire Katha Pollit’s writing. Here she is putting forward the case for voting Kamala Harris and not for a third-party candidate:
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/election-harris-gaza/
@BKiSA, iknklast,
The fact that the Harris campaign (or some ally) felt the need to make the ad indicates that it’s a real problem that some women feel they have to vote for their husband’s preferred candidate, or lie about it. No surprise, I suppose, but disturbing nonetheless.
The same survey the found 1 in 8 women lied to their husbands about voting differently also found that 1 in 10 men lied to their wives about voting differently. But the ad is about women, and the reaction has been loud from men.
I do know people who feel some sort of obligation to vote the same, rationalized as “it would be canceling your vote out if I voted differently, and that’s not a nice thing to do to you”. I don’t understand this, a vote is a vote, but that’s how some people think about it.
Well one of the original “arguments” against women voting was that it’d just be giving married men an extra vote (and since it also assumed almost all women would be married it effectively didn’t matter). For my part, while my wife and I discuss politics and our opinions on policy and candidates I make it clear that she should vote how she sees fit and should not be unduly influenced by what I think.
Just found this via Bluesky
The Transgender-Rights Issue
https://philosophersmag.com/the-transgender-rights-issue/
A most excellent take-down of the whole trans rights issue. Longish, but worth the read.
Thorough, well reasoned, straightforward and plain-spoken.
Huh. I used to work for that mag a long time ago.
Blood Knight in Sour Armor #108
“I make it clear that she should vote how she sees fit and should not be unduly influenced by what I think.”
That is very generous of you.
I hope she offers you the same.
Two things just came into focus for me.
The McEntee line went viral a few days ago, but Republicans have been making noise about denying women the vote for at least a couple of years now.
I initially took the cat lady stuff to be standard Republican trolling. I couldn’t make any sense at all out of the complaint that women vote. There is no foreseeable future in which 38 states vote to repeal the 19th amendment, so what is the point of saying something like that?
Then I remembered: it’s always projection. Whenever the Republicans accuse the Democrats of something, they are really talking about themselves. But in this case, it’s not a direct projection, it’s a mirrored projection. What is the mirror image of the childless cat lady? It’s the dateless MAGA boy. It’s the lonely, angry, frustrated, unsocialized young men who can’t get wives, or girlfriends, or dates, or – above all – sex.
What McEntee–and other Republicans who talk the same way–are offering these MAGA boys is a vision of a future where women are politically and socially subordinate to men. Where they can get the sex they want without having to work for it, or behave in society, or make themselves attractive to women. Where they can get what they want through political supremacy, and–if it comes to it–outright violence.
It’s a truism in American politics that you run to the wings to win your primary, and then tack back to the center to win the general election. Trump doesn’t do that. Trump runs to the right in the primary and never comes back to the center.
You can do that: Trump won in 2016. But if you do that, you can never stop. You can never slow down; you can never look back; you can never let up for even an instant. You have to always be pushing further and farther out to the extreme, and hope that that you can gain votes on the fringe faster than you lose them in the middle. And at some point it becomes a trap. The fringe is smaller than the middle (that’s why it’s called the fringe), so there are more votes to be lost in the middle than there are to be gained on the fringe.
I think that the bizarre statements and policy positions that we keep seeing from Republicans are increasingly desperate attempts to capture smaller and smaller tranches of votes from groups that are further and further out on the fringe of the right wing.
Steven, maybe there’s even more projection – the idea that the ‘childless cat ladies’ are miserable, because the MAGA boys are. They resent that a woman could be happier with a cat (or multiple cats) than with them. They resent the cats, they are jealous of the cats, and so they hate the cats. They also project the misery onto the cat ladies, maybe hoping if they can convince these ladies they are miserable, it would help them get sex. Good luck with that, MAGA boys.
As for voting and lying to my husband…when I read him stuff about this controversy, he said he couldn’t imagine even trying to tell me how to vote. He is sure it won’t work out well. And he’s right.
Today I experienced something I’ve never experienced before. As I was leaving the polling place, a TV news crew from a new cable outlet (Newsnation, Chris Cuomo’s new gig) stopped me for an interview. Our precinct is small and not terribly diverse (demographically or politically–we’re mostly white liberals), and with early voting there was hardly any activity, so it surprised me that they’d be interviewing voters there. But I saw them in a neighboring precinct as well, so I think this is a way to drum up viewers (I’ll be watching).
I don’t think I said anything terribly interesting–I have to confess I used the phrase “civic duty”–but I hope they caught my Woody Guthrie-inspired t-shirt on camera.
Just another JK Rowling/David Tennant/Kemi Badenoch story, with all the predictable BS, but this response caught my eye:
Because before David Tennant came along Rowling was just a struggling author scribbling away in a coffeeshop in the wilds of Scotland with just a few obscure books and straight-to-DVD films to her name. Where oh where would she ever be without Tennant’s brilliant Oscar– nay, Nobel-worthy turn as Barty Crouch Jr.?
Good essay by Glenna Goldis: Chase Strangio’s Legal Narrative. It discusses the likely legal strategy to be employed by Strangio in arguing the Skrmetti case on pediatric gender medicine before the Supreme Court.
Sackbut, that essay was a good one, all right. I was reading it, and forgot to start dinner. So we’ll eat late tonight, thanks to you. ;-)
Strangio identifies as non-binary and male. Those are contradictory. I guess that doesn’t bother her, because she is special, and can show you her specialness any time.
This quote sort of shows that. It could describe almost everyone in college – and many younger and older people. A natural part of growing up that we all go through, and she turns it into something that she felt that somehow made her special.
Whenever I read about her, the narcissism, oh, it burns.
Yeah, the franchise was four films in before Tennant put in his guest appearance, Afterwards, when I heard some time later that he’d been in it, I had to consult IMDB to see which character he’d played, because I hadn’t noticed him.
Not a role I would get worked up about in his case. The Purple Man was a much more exciting character.
Another neighbourhood vignette. Trans bullshit makes me cranky. Maybe at this point I’m spending too much time looking for it, but its omnipresence makes it hard to avoid. Today’s encounter with it took place in a local store selling handicrafts. Right at the door was a little Pride Progress flag (complete with the Intersex yellowtiangle with purple circle). Beside it was a happy rainbow sticker assuring those in need of such reassurance that You Are Safe Here. Of course this wasn’t telling everyone entering the store that the building they were entering was up to code and therefore unlikely to burst into flame or collapse onto us during our shopping visit. No. This is a different kind of “safety” we’re talking about here, and this “safety” is reserved for Special People, as the sticker was gaudily announcing that the store was not just a retail establishment, but also a 2SLGBTQIA+ Safe Space. One wonders if there are any regulations or guidelines for that. Not just any old place can be a daycare centre, for example. Restaurants here are required to display the results of the latest health inspection. Somehow I doubt there is any such certification or registration needed, and that any store can simply “identify” as a safe space, with no need to fulfil any requirements other than a desire to advertise one’s piety and righteousness. You just slap on a sticker here and there and voila, you’re an Ally! And, despite the rest of the flag, I think at this point. these displays of obedience and loyalty are all about the Trans. If it was about gay rights, you’d just have the good, old fashion Pride Flag, except that it’s now insufficiently “inclusive”, and about as welcome as a Swastika flag, or the Confederate one, as it is verboten to have anything LGB without the T.
These stickers operate on several levels at once. However much of a “welcome” they might be for the target audience, they are also a warning. They mean, theoretically, that the staff will not only not challenge trans bullshit, but also defend and enforce it. I would expect any sticker-displaying establishment large enough to have separate male and female bathroom facilities would allow men-pretending-to-be-women to use what, until recently, would have been exclusively female spaces. If anyone questions their use of women’s spaces, staff will defend the intruder, rather than the intrudeed upon. So, not “safe” for women, then.
More insidiously, these stickers play into the trans victimization and fragility narrative. If the store is a “safe space,” then by implication everywhere else is hostile. THE WHOLE WORLD IS OUT TO GET YOU! COME INSIDE: YOU’LL BE SAFE HERE! As if hatred falls from the sky like rain, and stores with stickers are offering life-saving shelter from the storm. But there’s more than one storm brewing, as women well know, having had their own safety eroded in favour of the validation of delusional males.
Do trans activists really assume that any store without a sticker is “unsafe”? Is that even the actual point? Displaying such stickers advertises putative allyship, but it also shows surrender and obedience to gender ideology. It represents a promise to comply. This puts pressure on other shopkeepers to announce their own stores’ “safety”.
Most of the products were fairly typical craft items, mostly handmade. Felted, knitted, or crocheted animals, jewelery, candles, soaps. You get the picture. But one item was a “Rainbow Certified” tote bag:
https://rainbowcertified.com/#7-insta-feed
emblazoned with the slogan “Support LGBTQ+”, with fluffy clouds, flowers, and a rainbow. (The company’s website informs me that Rainbow Certified is a queer owned small business who makes apparel & accessories for the LGBTQ+ community. I feel excluded already. Am I allowed to even look at this tote bag? Why yes, I am. (Read on.) Perhaps I’m reading to much into this, but notice that it’s not a simple statement in which the person carrying the bag is declaring “I support LGBTQ+”, but a demand that the viewer do so. It might be printed in a 60’s-esque flower-power kind of font, but it’s still a demand, and a forced-teaming one at that. Read and obey. Cutesy pushy is still pushy. Push someone else.
Shopping doesn’t usually make me this crotchety, but I get tired of all of this public display trans crap. It feels like swimming through a treacly sea of lies. Lies that I’m supposed to accept and believe. We’re supposed to be happy with our own coercion. All the rainbow colours and glitter hide an underlying malice and darkness that comes to the fore in accusations of bigotry and hatred. As I’ve commented before, the Progress Pride flag feels like the flag of a hostile, occupying force, passed off as the banner of a well-meaning, public-spirited campaign of kindness, compassion and concern. Look more closely, and the actual focus of that “compassion” and “concern” is very narrow. Its demands are enforced with very little kindness, and at a very steep cost to women and girls.
[…] a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? at Miscellany […]
Taliban congratulate Americans for “‘not handing leadership of their great country to a woman’.
https://xcancel.com/marlene4719/status/1855349954849714402#m
Well, Male Supremacists stick together….
I haven’t posted here since 2016. Hi, everyone. I want to post Does anyone know where to chat about gender critical left-wing issues without dealing with Trump apologists?
Hi, welcome back. One place to chat about gender critical left-wing issues without dealing with Trump apologists is, well, here. Googling “gender critical blogs” turns up blogs I know are not Trumpy. Or seek out Kathleen Stock, Joan Smith, Julie Bindel, JK Rowling to name just a few.
Linda Binda; Jane Clare Jones has written extensively on the dangers of GC activism getting too chummy with the right wing.
Hi, everyone, again. I always appreciate how friendly you are! I didn’t know my post posted after all! It posted way earlier than I had hoped to by accident, (hence the glaring typos), but then, I couldn’t find it.
I deactivated my 12+-year-old Twitter account a couple of days ago. I wish I could convince the British women on there to do *what I particularly want* and drop everything over there to move onto who-knows-where at my personal convenience, but that’s not me respecting people’s autonomy, is it? Heh, heh…
I had been lurking in Ovarit for since its founding but the forum has uncharacteristically shut down until the upcoming 14th this month, for reasons of “lacking mods,” very apparently to wait out the electoral storm. Quite a few regulars moved onto the Gendercritical Saidit forum, and a few of them there have started gloating about Trump and bashing Democrats and speculating about the “controlling issues” of the Ovarit mod who made the temporary shutdown announcement, who, if I remember correctly, just happens to be British. My gossipy guess: she might have been pro-Harris (maybe: I could be wrong), and she didn’t want to be around for the volcanic eruption of electoral fallout. One of the women there said something derogatory about recently African-descended (Nigerian, et al) Americans (black people like me) stealing college spots from Black Americans, saying that Kamala Harris is like “those people,” that basically, she’s not a real black woman, and that her speaking style was fake and pandering. Basically, this [probably white] woman was repeating “FBA”/“ADOS”-movement xenophobic nonsense about Black African and Caribbean Americans. I stupidly tried to say something because I found someone *saying something wrong on the Internet* and I got banned from their forum. Meanwhile, there is a troll there calling all Ovarit posters Karens who “scream misogyny at everything” and that they supposedly hate all gay men, but I’m the banned one, [probably he] isn’t. I’m just flummoxed. I’ve never been banned from any forum before in all of the 25+ years I’ve been chatting online (I’m 40 — I used to post on newsgroups at age 15), and I didn’t take it very well. I found myself begging my mom and brother to let me buy some Nicorette at 10:30pm last night (I’ve been suffering really bad nicotine withdrawal this past week), and I feel I’ve humiliated myself. I didn’t think that this election would end THIS badly, that it would leave me with almost nowhere to go to cope with the results. Black women in places like Lipstick Alley have alleged forever that Ovarit has a race problem that the latter’s moderation keeps refusing to deal with: that the white women there don’t want to accommodate any racial minority women (I personally hate the “of color” phrase) or give them any sub-Ovarit forums there to discuss things, and I guess I’m currently trapped in that silly “I didn’t think the leopards would eat MY face” trope.
This is really bad. I don’t want to be censorious and thin-skinned, but I can’t deal with people claiming that Harris is “fake” when they don’t understand that Black American culture has demanded that we black African and Caribbean immigrants’ children do the “jive-turkey” talk as that racist put it for decades, and if we don’t do our best to assimilate, then we’re anti-black and that we’re probably Republican, when, no matter how we act or talk, the majority of us aren’t “anti-black.” We’re almost as pro-Democratic as other “foundational black Americans” or “American Descendants of Slaves.” Our parents make us speak the Queen’s English at home to the point where they won’t let us get any American slang out of our mouths before we can finish a full-on sentence, they oftentimes won’t let us “dress like them,” and if we learn to “code-switch,” we are learning it behind our parents’ backs and we’re doing it with constant suspicion from Black Americans who constantly want to accuse us of hating them based on nothing but popular movies that bash the African diaspora and other Black celebrities mocking us. People like Harris and Obama have to “jive-turkey” talk because if they don’t, they get people like Jesse Jackson claiming that we’re “talking down to them.” If Harris talked “normal,” (read: “white”) (what proof do we have that Harris doesn’t regularly talk the way she does in speeches? What proof do we have that the way she talks in public is all that different than how she may talk in private?), she might alienate more suspicious Black people than if she didn’t — she came out through the system after all — she’s supposed to dump everything she’s learned about surviving the grind over the past 35+ years for one election? Is that realistic? Didn’t she deal with having to win black people’s trust when she was studying at Howard University? And even then, some people accused her of pandering when she did her concession speech at Howard — why? Isn’t that her alma mater? She can’t do speeches at the school she started her career at now? And finally, regarding “normal” talk, are we finally admitting that black people talk differently than everyone else, and maybe, when we all live in the same country and we all speak the same language in public, that that might be a problem? Are we ready to admit that AAVE is kind of a relic we might need to begin to let go? No? Okay. (Uh oh — I might have said something “anti-black.” Well, like how I don’t want to waste time defending credibility-lacking TRAs, I’m not wasting time arguing that the “N-word pass” is enforceable or that saying the N-word in public at all makes any kind of sense — no? Okay.)
Speaking of “ADOS,” aren’t most black Caribbeans “descended from slaves” as well? For some reason, in this past election, we let Trump insinuate that black Caribbeans didn’t come from slavery, and I don’t know why, other than American public school failure to educate anyone about anything outside of the U.S. except England in our world history classes, our general U.S. ethnocentrism and xenophobia, and of course, our refusal to hold him accountable for *anything,* that we just let him and the rest of the right-wing media get away with that. Just bizarre.
Right now, I’m hoping against common sense that there’s MAYBE something unnatural about the voting results, but maybe there isn’t. This really sucks.
Thanks for reading my rant. Thank you for your kindness. Is there a forum like a blog or somewhere where left-wing GCs gather where I can read off of Twitter? Maybe not. But thank you, regardless.
Sorry. I just now realized that Ms Benson answered my question about gender critical blogs. For the record, this blog helped me go “peak trans” with what happened with this place versus the Freethought (heh) network back in 2015~2016. Thanks, once again
It did that for me, too!
Linda Binda, thank you for sharing your experiences (I usually hate the thank you for sharing formulation; ;it’s so…shallow). I watched people claim Obama wasn’t really black, and that Harris wasn’t really black, and while I disagreed, as a white person I am not listened to if I say anything, because it isn’t my lived experience. No, it’s not, but listening to you reinforces what everyone should know – lived experience is not the same for everyone even in a demographic. My upbringing wasn’t ‘white’, it was ‘poor’. It was ‘fundamentalist Christian’. I had little (read: nothing) in common with the rich snobbish white girls in my school. There were two other girls poor enough to sit with me at lunch. We didn’t like each other, but no one else would sit with us, so we stuck together (nothing in common with them, either). There were no minorities in our school; the poor were the only minorities, because it was a rich town. My ‘lived experience’ is not the same as any of the other 800 students in my graduating class. They didn’t consider me one of them, and I didn’t ever feel like I could be one of them. For too many years, I allowed them to define me, and now I resolutely refuse.
At this point, I feel a lot of us on this blog share things in common, even though there is no indication any of us have a shared ‘lived experience’. We come from all sorts of different backgrounds, countries, college degrees, etc. Yet somehow we are able to understand each other, talk to each other, and not be anywhere as dysfunctional as my family and my school, where I supposedly (though not really) had shared ‘lived experiences’. We can disagree, and even get snarky with each other, and we have different levels of interest in some subjects, but we somehow manage to maintain a coherent, coalescent, and compassionate commentariat (I hope you like alliteration!).
I hope you stick around. You sound like someone who would have a lot to add to our conversations, and you will be welcomed here. We’re (mostly) friendly, but sometimes the leopards threaten to eat our faces.
Has anyone here seen this? Graham Linehan has tweeted support for Donald Trump:
https://x.com/Glinner/status/1854307968252084731
So Graham’s become another Trumpkin?
“So Graham’s become another Trumpkin?”
Maybe he has, but I’m not yet convinced. I think he is someone who is monomaniacally focused on a single issue, and he sees evidence that Trump will resolve that issue (in a country where Glinner does not live) in a way that Glinner likes. But I have seen other people voice full support for Trump based on that one issue, so perhaps. It is disturbing, certainly.
Quite a few gender critical people are pro-Trump for the same reason; it’s not just Glinner.
I’m not sure any single issue would make a person “pro-Trump” though. There are far more things people would agree upon, particularly when it comes to women’s rights and protection of children, than disagree. I don’t see the trans movement as a particularly partisan issue. If anything, it has more in common with far right ideology, that being religious, authoritarian, thought policing, compelled speech, reinforcing stereotypes, and that sort of cultish “our way is the only way” doctrinarian thinking. Trans cult activism looks more like a far right movement masquerading as a far left one, probably because it’s been forcibly attached to sex based rights movements when it has little in common with them. I see the trans cult as its own deleterious and deceptive thing. How any liberal minded person goes along with any of it, aside from the attitude of live and let live, or basic tolerance, particularly after understanding how it affects other groups of vulnerable people, is truly a wonder.
Meanwhile, in Michigan:
The KKK used hoods in part to disguise the fact that they were doctors, bankers, cops, salesmen, and other “upstanding” members of the community. So who was behind those masks?
I was just at the Margaret Mitchell house (museum) here in Atlanta. Those KKK members were our neighbors. They were back then, and they are now. The racism and misogyny is still there. It’s been suppressed in the modern era, but there are those who carry on the tradition, and have been taught to hate from an early age. GWTW may have been inaccurate in focusing on slaves who had a better life than most, and it is fiction after all, but the portrayal of the KKK (fictionalized) and their cowardly contingent is closer to the truth. For something closer to historical accuracy, I would recommend 12 Years a Slave.
Gone With the Wind is a (very slightly) updated Birth of a Nation; both are pillars of post-Reconstruction racist mythology.
#132 Ophelia Benson:
Meghan Murphy of “Feminist Current” fame has said she also supports Donald Trump now:
I voted Trump/Vance
https://x.com/MeghanEMurphy/status/1854012777423306758#m
I’m not middle class or weak and I voted for Trump lol
https://x.com/MeghanEMurphy/status/1856104349023514922#m
Wait. Meghan Murphy is Canadian. Are we allowing Canada to vote in our elections now? Or is she just blowing smoke?
Google tells me she has dual citizenship.
I did know she left Canada some years ago.
Kellie-Jay Keen AKA Posie Parker was also pleased with Donald Trump’s victory. She tweeted to Sebastian Gorka:
I’m so thrilled Sebastian, for you, for Trump and, mostly, for America!
https://x.com/ThePosieParker/status/1854149456523882593
Looks like there’s a significant number of GC people who support Trump now, including former anti-Trump people like Linehan and Murphy.
It’s easy for Posie Parker; she doesn’t live here. What will she think when things really hit the fan? Is it a worthy tradeoff? Kids in cages vs. trans in the bathrooms. RFK Jr. in charge of health vs. trans in women’s sports. All of those are part of Trump’s agenda, and it isn’t possible for me to pick and choose one thing. Especially since I suspect Harris is following a trend, and could be reasoned with if the scientific evidence were presented to her. I doubt she spends much time following trans blogs, and even less following GC blogs. She may not know anything about the situation other than they have certain claims about genocide and suicide, and that they are part of the LGBTQI+++++++ community.
It’s easy for Posie Parker; she doesn’t live here
And Linehan lives in Britain, and Murphy in Mexico. The worst consequences of a second Trump Administration won’t affect them.
Maybe this issue of GC people supporting Trump needs more discussion here?
I don’t believe Trump cares about the gender issue except as a way of getting more votes – Trump would support the re-introduction of Prohibition if he thought it was an election winner.
Plus, y’know, a CONVICTED SEXUAL ASSAULTER isn’t going to help women.
Yeh I think I saw the KJK tweet and flinched. I saw something and flinched, and not for the first time.
Maybe the issue of GC people supporting Trump does need more discussion here. Maybe I’ll do a post.
Ophelia @ #143
Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull supported Trump in the 2020 presidential election in a video on YouTube that has since been made private. Her associations with the political Right were thoroughly documented in this post from March last year, compiled by a group of feminists in Australia.
The British group Woman’s Place UK dissociated themselves from KJK in 2018:
Two months ago Keen-Minshul proclaimed on Twitter (sorry, x.com):
This, I think, is not irrelevant:
For context:
We are all familiar with attempts to classify ideologies and political systems in terms of different axes, or dimensions, or coordinate systems (individualist vs. collectivist, egalitarian vs. hierarchical, libertarian vs. authoritarian, universalist vs. identitarian etc.). There is a tendency to lump one’s political rivals together by selectively emphasizing the axes along which their positions happen to coincide to the exclusion of all the others. There is also a tendency to distance oneself from groups one does not like to be associated with by selectively emphasizing the differences and ignoring the similarities. E.g. back in my movement atheist days accomodationists often accused “militants” like myself of being “just like the fundamentalists” (“just as dogmatic”, “just as intolerant of opposing views” etc.), and from a certain point of view they were right: Even if hard-line atheists and religious fundamentalists disagreed on pretty much all the specific answers, not to mention how those answers were derived in the first place, at least they both agreed that the answer mattered, and to the accomodationists that was exactly the problem. Accomodationists and moderate believers also disagreed on the specific answers, but shared the same indifference to truth and reason, as well as the same commitment to bland, indifferent centrism and bothsiderism.
I’m increasingly inclined to think that the main battle of our time is not between “the Left” and “the Right”, but between those, whether Left or Right, who still respect facts and logic and care about classical liberal values (universal rights, individual liberty, free expression, academic freedom, basic democratic rules of the game etc.) and those who don’t. As I keep saying, Trumpism and wokeism are both post-truth ideologies. As much as the woke crowd hate Trump (i.e. not nearly as much as they hate the “wrong kind” of leftists!), they absolutely love what he has done to factual discourse. For all their mutual antagonism, Trump-supporters and wokesters both want to live in a world in which sound volume and endless repetitions trump (no pun intended) facts and the biggest bully, capable of mobilizing the biggest mob, has a blank check to take whatever he wants and destroy anyone who gets in his way.
We keep talking about the political “Left” vs. the political “Right” as if it were obvious what we were talking about, when, in fact, these are umbrella terms, each covering a vast range of very different, and even mutually hostile, movements, ideologies, political systems etc. Talking in terms of “Left” vs. “Right” makes it sound like the people on the “Left” are all on the same side against everyone on the “Right”, when in fact a person on the moderate center-Left who believes in liberal values almost certainly has more in common with someone on the moderate center-Right who also believes in liberal values than either of them does with Fascists, Communists, Trump-supporters, or wokesters.
To me the defining feature of “leftism” is that “leftists” tend to “side with the underdog” as they see it (in practice, of course, seeing it that way in the first place may require acceptance of some extremely dubious truth claims, academic theories, ideological doctrines etc., but still…). They tend to see the world as inherently unjust and unfair, i.e. as a place where certain groups, simply by accident of birth, start out at a major disadvantage while others get an almost insurmountable head start. Furthermore, this inherent injustice perpetuates itself from one generation to the next, leaving the disadvantaged groups perpetually last in line. Breaking out of this vicious cycle is going to require active political interventions, from gradual reform to armed revolution.
For most of my life, “leftists” tended to be the ones who were trying to get away from boxes and labels and different standards of treatment for different groups of people (judging people by the “content of their character” rather then the color of their skin etc.). As (iirc) Nick Cohen once pointed out, women, ethnic minorities, homosexuals etc. were not asking for special treatment: What they were objecting to was precisely the fact that they were given special treatment. That’s what “discrimination” means! Woke identity politics, by contrast, is all about boxes and labels and treating people differently according to group identity.
Despite efforts to equate wokeism with “cultural Marxism”, Marxists, believed in objective truth and claimed it for themselves. To the woke any appeal to “objective truth”, as well as “evidence”, “logic” etc. is just a naked exercise of power to force oppressed groups into accepting the self-serving narratives of their oppressors. Marxists were mainly concerned with class, the one axis of privilege and marginalization that the woke don’t care about at all. As many others have pointed out, “Marxism” without any consideration of class is rather like a doughnut after you have removed everything except the hole: Pretty much indistinguishable from nothing. Both Marxists and wokesters invoked a concept of “false consciousness”, but according to Marxism the oppressed (i.e. the working class) were blind to their own oppression, and therefore needed the Communist Party to do their thinking for them. According to wokeism it’s the oppressor classes themselves who are blind to their own privilege etc. etc.
The people on the “Right”, on the other hand, tend to see themselves as siding with “the deserving”. Fiscal conservatives and libertarians interpret “the deserving” in meritocratic terms (the hard working, the competent, the achievers etc.). The “American Dream” was all about being “self-made” and making it to the top through personal effort without outside help. Indeed, the greatest heroes were the ones who managed to overcome great obstacles and opposition and prove everybody else wrong (“I did it my way” etc.). Fiscal conservatives and libertarians also tend to see the world as inherently just and fair. Or, if there is anything unfair about it, it’s mainly unfair to the deserving who keep getting held back by burdensome regulations while having the fruit of their accomplishments confiscated and redistributed to the undeserving (the lazy, the incompetent, the bums). By contrast cultural conservatives, religious fundamentalists, fascist etc. see their own group as more deserving than all others by virtue of their superior ancestry, ethnicity, culture, religion etc. Everyone else is considered undeserving by virtue of who they are, rather than anything they’ve ever done.
There is a tendency among leftists to portray Trumpism as simply the logical consequence of what “conservatives” have been up to all along, when, in fact, the betrayal of the idea of meritocracy in favor of a system that favors personal loyalty to the leader over accomplishment is almost certainly more offensive to the old-school conservatives than to leftists who think there is no such thing as “meritocracy” anyway: Just unearned privilege perpetuating itself from one generation to the next. Traditional conservatives also tended to emphasize values like character, integrity, and personal responsibility (far more than Leftists who are more sympathetic to blaming the “system” for personal shortcomings), whereas fascists emphasize brute force and the ability to bend the world to one’s will, and dismiss any appeal to such fake “values” as “slave morality” rooted in resentment, envy and the need to discredit what one is too weak to do oneself (cf. Nietzsche). The same disdain for “do-gooders” and the same amoral commitment to winning by any means necessary is obvious in kleptocrats like Trump and Putin. The sentiment is admirably captured in this quote from the gangster movie Goodfellas:
This is not the inevitable implication of favoring lower taxes, more privatization, and less government spending.
“Questionable Content” is a webcomic that I usually find amusing.
The author seems to have bought into the trans BS, but it is not usually intrusive enough to put me off continuing to read it.
Given some of the commentary here making fun of trans, with talk about being eg: a trans-otter, I’m wondering which side of the issue the author is making fun of here?
https://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=5440