The more "trans inclusive" the culture becomes, the more appealing membership in the trans club becomes. This is a marketing campaign, not a social justice movement.
I like "promotional incentives." The first thing this post brought to my mind was the difference between elastic and inelastic demand; obviously, the demand for trans is elastic.
But the second thing this brought to my mind, yet again, is that gender ideology is a proselytizing religion. It's not enough for its practitioners to worship in silence; they need converts. Conversion is one of their religious practices.
There are some religions (or sects thereof) that make a practice of proselytizing, or "saving others' souls." Compare the Jehovah's Witnesses going door to door with, say, orthodox Jews. Never in a million years is the rabbi next door going to ask if you've 'heard the good news.' He might ask you to turn the lights back on for him on Saturday if the power goes out, but he's not going to try to convert you (he'd need a new Emergency Goy then).
Try replacing "Trans Rights" in any of these mottos or flags with another religion that proselytizes. Try "Muslim Rights are Human Rights," or "The Erosion of Evangelical Rights Is the Erosion of All Our Rights." I could easily see people saying or posting these slogans, and what would it mean when they did it? What would "Evangelical Rights" entail, or its erosion?
I went to public school in the days when prayer at the beginning of class was not uncommon. In some places, maybe there are still classrooms with crucifixes and the Ten Commandments posted, and teachers still push little bibles on the kids. But for the most part it's recognized that this kind of religious proselytism in school is inappropriate, and they don't do it like that where I live now. Perhaps that was the erosion of "Evangelical Rights."
Why did people think that kind of stuff belonged in the classroom in the first place? Because they believed that their religion had a special status in this country, and in that school, a place above other religions. They thought other religions were opinions, and their religion was the truth (and so did everybody they knew). The same teachers who pushed the tiny plastic-bound Bible on me as a kid would be up in arms if another teacher was in the hall distributing little plastic-bound Korans, or if the kids were required to bring in a rug on which to prostrate themselves (if they chose to, naturally) in the morning. Christianity was above other religions; those other ones could be practiced quietly at home, but only Christianity had a place in the classroom.
The special religion in the classroom now is Gender Ideology. There's no Bible distribution, but the kids have Gender Unicorn handouts. There's no prayer, but the kids are reciting their pronouns at the beginning of class. Squadrons of children sitting criss-cross applesauce are being told, earnestly, that they all have a special gender soul, and one day they'll be blessed to know what it is. The "Erosion of Trans Rights" might mean something similar to what happened with Christianity, the reduction of Gender Ideology from a special place above other beliefs, down to an equal status. Kids wouldn't be asked to declare their pronouns in class anymore. The proliferation of Gender Spectra would cease. Glitter futures would tank. There would be no more "Trans Rights" anymore, just the same rights everybody else has.
zzzzz.... interesting how you have exactly zero actual argument to make. just commentary about how it offends you. That's typical of people in cults. You express your disapproval but you can't explain WHY you disapprove. Off with you, back to your septum-pierced, blue-haired cult...
I'm pretty sure "You are delusional" is self-explanatory, actually. And why the bizarre comment about "how it offends you?" How, exactly, do you make the leap from "You are insane" to "I have offended you?" All you're doing with that nonsense is making it clear exactly what motivates right-wingers like you; a sadistic desire to hurt people.
Doesn't change the fact that you are batshit crazy, though...
Yes, all true, well written, nailed all the points. I hope you don’t take this as a negative comment, because I very much value a clear explanation of the problem. But I guess I want to know: what now? How can this misogyny and homophobia be dealt with? Why were so many institutions captured, what’s to stop them being captured by the next fad? And I do not have answers.
In spite of Trump's executive order or sex and gender, many US west coast gym changing rooms and showers are still open to “trans women.” Men have figured out that they don't even have to “perform woman” to get the privilege of using our private spaces. The YMCA says that if a member steps foot into the female locker room that MEANS that member is a woman. Actual women who have complained about men in our spaces have lost their memberships, sometimes for life. Good men are not getting into the shower and making women and children uncomfortable, but creepy men treat the female shower like a free t!ttie show. Most women who get creeped on just decide to shower at home instead of using the gym's female facility.
I think many liberal and progressive men are hoping that women will eventually get used to seeing penises in our showers and they'll all get to come in and enjoy the show too. Sadly there are enough women who think they're being kind as allies that fighting against these policies is proving to be harder than just an executive order from the President.
I love your framing of their behaviour as censoring mention or acknowledgement of their sex - I've usually thought if it as forced speech in the form of 'affirmation' but actually it's both things.
Re differences between homosexuality and 'trans' - I would love to have your thoughts on whether the same analysis applies to women as much as men. I've heard women's sexuality is more fluid than men's, and that there is such a thing as a 'political lesbian' - do you think this is true, and does it mean that further analysis is needed here?
While I agree with your general line of thought here, arguing that homosexuality is sort of 100% a "real"/biological identity and not social/environmental (unlike trans) isn't actually correct. I realize it is the line LG activists have been schlepping for decades, but I do think there is a bit more diversity in the lesbian and gay experience than that.
I understand why people wouldn't to comes to terms with that. "Born this way" makes so much more convenient a political framing, but it just doesn't square with the reality of the population IME (and I have lots of LG friends/relatives).
Just to take some examples from the 5 LG people I know best:
Lifelong gay guy: Slept in a bed with his mom each night during WWII while his father was away. Always less masculine than his older brother, hated sports even as a young kid. Tried dating women a bit in 20s and 30s in the 60s/70s, always found the idea of sex with women a bit disgusting/off-putting. Came out in late 70s and discovered he loved loved loved the gay scene and gay men, though I am not 100% sure he went much other than oral once he was in say his 50s. Sure lets say he was "born this way", though there is clearly some environmental story you could tell there too.
Late bloomer guy: Lived a normal life met wife in graduate school had kids, got into gay porn in his 50s online, spent a lot of time on that, wife wanted divorce but he didn't, kind of wanted to stayed married and having sex with her, but also go out and rail guys regularly. No go for her. Get the impression he just loves having sex and it is so much easier with men than women and he is attracted to that gay culture. Seems like born bi-sexual/hypersexual dude?
Close female family member 1: Totally hetero childhood, though it was crummy and more than a bit neglectful. Heavily into drug use in teens/20s, definitely into guys, gets knocked up by band mate. They eventually get married, turns out he was cheating on her constantly the whole time with her close friend. She hates men for a while, then tries to get back into dating in early 30s as single mother, really unimpressed with her options. Has career in leftist political activism.
Meets rich successful lesbian who is put together and interested in her. Is now a lesbian though it has to be one of the least outwardly "romantic" relationships I have ever seen. Not remotely convinced this person was "born lesbian". Would take a huge bet against that.
Close female family member 2: Awkward mildly autistic girl, bit of a tomboy. Barely stumbled through HS, fails/dropout of college repeatedly. In love with her female best friend who is hetero for years in teens/20s/early 30s. Meanwhile living with stoner male friend for almost all of this time. Relationship with him seems entirely platonic, but hard to say for sure and she firmly identifies as a lesbian though never really dates any women and just pines after this one old female friend who is married and has kids and has zero interest. At some point it becomes clear that her and guy she has been living with for almost two decades at this point are a sexual couple and not just the platonic roommates it seemed they were for at least a decade. She goes back to college and completes it and in late 30s they seem almost like a normal couple other than they have been living together for 20 years and aren't married. Seems like maybe born a lesbian but chooses not to be one? Bi-sexual? Just someone who only has tolerance for a few people in the whole world?
College female friend: Kind of odd alternative lefty girl, adopted. Flirted with lesbianism and being super butch in college and right before/after. Super into lesbianism for a while. Met one good guy and became total normal vanilla hetero lady. So not born this way?
Bonus trans example: Girl who was raised pretty rough, was definitely pretty masculine/tomboyish had two very crummy relationships after HS including moving in with an abusive guy on the other side of the country. Came out of that deciding she was a boy, dressing like a man, wanting to get surgery, got pretty far down that road in about 2005 and then met a decent couple of guys and decided she was a girl again and has been very happy for 15+ years. Hetero married and even thinking about having kids. Definitely easily could have been a "trans person" if things worked out slightly different, and definitely wasn't "born that way". Also would generally say like most "tomboys" even when she was at her most masculine, she was much closer to being a girl in overall behavior/demeanor/outlook than a guy. Like a tomboy is typically still like 80% girl if you get what I mean.
I would also point out that some people think women tend to have more fluid sexualities than men, which is something these examples from my life also seem to indicate.
And I can see someone say like "why you got to define everything, just let people be people! Which sure that is one way to go about it. But then you can't make these hard and fast demarcations/contrasts between the different things. Gays see the trans movement turn what would have 15 years ago been additional gays trans and say "hang on a minute some of this is clearly environmental/social, they definitely weren't all born this way". Yet literally for the exact same reasons people were saying that about homosexuality 20 years ago. It is a delicate pinhead to dance on.
And to be clear I tend to agree with you that there is a difference in the populations, and that in particular because "trans" often involves permanent life changes, there are much higher stakes and need for caution.
I like "promotional incentives." The first thing this post brought to my mind was the difference between elastic and inelastic demand; obviously, the demand for trans is elastic.
But the second thing this brought to my mind, yet again, is that gender ideology is a proselytizing religion. It's not enough for its practitioners to worship in silence; they need converts. Conversion is one of their religious practices.
There are some religions (or sects thereof) that make a practice of proselytizing, or "saving others' souls." Compare the Jehovah's Witnesses going door to door with, say, orthodox Jews. Never in a million years is the rabbi next door going to ask if you've 'heard the good news.' He might ask you to turn the lights back on for him on Saturday if the power goes out, but he's not going to try to convert you (he'd need a new Emergency Goy then).
Try replacing "Trans Rights" in any of these mottos or flags with another religion that proselytizes. Try "Muslim Rights are Human Rights," or "The Erosion of Evangelical Rights Is the Erosion of All Our Rights." I could easily see people saying or posting these slogans, and what would it mean when they did it? What would "Evangelical Rights" entail, or its erosion?
I went to public school in the days when prayer at the beginning of class was not uncommon. In some places, maybe there are still classrooms with crucifixes and the Ten Commandments posted, and teachers still push little bibles on the kids. But for the most part it's recognized that this kind of religious proselytism in school is inappropriate, and they don't do it like that where I live now. Perhaps that was the erosion of "Evangelical Rights."
Why did people think that kind of stuff belonged in the classroom in the first place? Because they believed that their religion had a special status in this country, and in that school, a place above other religions. They thought other religions were opinions, and their religion was the truth (and so did everybody they knew). The same teachers who pushed the tiny plastic-bound Bible on me as a kid would be up in arms if another teacher was in the hall distributing little plastic-bound Korans, or if the kids were required to bring in a rug on which to prostrate themselves (if they chose to, naturally) in the morning. Christianity was above other religions; those other ones could be practiced quietly at home, but only Christianity had a place in the classroom.
The special religion in the classroom now is Gender Ideology. There's no Bible distribution, but the kids have Gender Unicorn handouts. There's no prayer, but the kids are reciting their pronouns at the beginning of class. Squadrons of children sitting criss-cross applesauce are being told, earnestly, that they all have a special gender soul, and one day they'll be blessed to know what it is. The "Erosion of Trans Rights" might mean something similar to what happened with Christianity, the reduction of Gender Ideology from a special place above other beliefs, down to an equal status. Kids wouldn't be asked to declare their pronouns in class anymore. The proliferation of Gender Spectra would cease. Glitter futures would tank. There would be no more "Trans Rights" anymore, just the same rights everybody else has.
"Glitter futures would tank" that's gold!!!
This is your brain on bigotry, folks… Totally disconnected from reality…
zzzzz.... interesting how you have exactly zero actual argument to make. just commentary about how it offends you. That's typical of people in cults. You express your disapproval but you can't explain WHY you disapprove. Off with you, back to your septum-pierced, blue-haired cult...
I'm pretty sure "You are delusional" is self-explanatory, actually. And why the bizarre comment about "how it offends you?" How, exactly, do you make the leap from "You are insane" to "I have offended you?" All you're doing with that nonsense is making it clear exactly what motivates right-wingers like you; a sadistic desire to hurt people.
Doesn't change the fact that you are batshit crazy, though...
Excellent piece, Arty, thanks.
Have cross posted
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/just-making-sure
Dusty
Thanks Dusty!
Yes, all true, well written, nailed all the points. I hope you don’t take this as a negative comment, because I very much value a clear explanation of the problem. But I guess I want to know: what now? How can this misogyny and homophobia be dealt with? Why were so many institutions captured, what’s to stop them being captured by the next fad? And I do not have answers.
In spite of Trump's executive order or sex and gender, many US west coast gym changing rooms and showers are still open to “trans women.” Men have figured out that they don't even have to “perform woman” to get the privilege of using our private spaces. The YMCA says that if a member steps foot into the female locker room that MEANS that member is a woman. Actual women who have complained about men in our spaces have lost their memberships, sometimes for life. Good men are not getting into the shower and making women and children uncomfortable, but creepy men treat the female shower like a free t!ttie show. Most women who get creeped on just decide to shower at home instead of using the gym's female facility.
I think many liberal and progressive men are hoping that women will eventually get used to seeing penises in our showers and they'll all get to come in and enjoy the show too. Sadly there are enough women who think they're being kind as allies that fighting against these policies is proving to be harder than just an executive order from the President.
I love your framing of their behaviour as censoring mention or acknowledgement of their sex - I've usually thought if it as forced speech in the form of 'affirmation' but actually it's both things.
Re differences between homosexuality and 'trans' - I would love to have your thoughts on whether the same analysis applies to women as much as men. I've heard women's sexuality is more fluid than men's, and that there is such a thing as a 'political lesbian' - do you think this is true, and does it mean that further analysis is needed here?
While I agree with your general line of thought here, arguing that homosexuality is sort of 100% a "real"/biological identity and not social/environmental (unlike trans) isn't actually correct. I realize it is the line LG activists have been schlepping for decades, but I do think there is a bit more diversity in the lesbian and gay experience than that.
I understand why people wouldn't to comes to terms with that. "Born this way" makes so much more convenient a political framing, but it just doesn't square with the reality of the population IME (and I have lots of LG friends/relatives).
Just to take some examples from the 5 LG people I know best:
Lifelong gay guy: Slept in a bed with his mom each night during WWII while his father was away. Always less masculine than his older brother, hated sports even as a young kid. Tried dating women a bit in 20s and 30s in the 60s/70s, always found the idea of sex with women a bit disgusting/off-putting. Came out in late 70s and discovered he loved loved loved the gay scene and gay men, though I am not 100% sure he went much other than oral once he was in say his 50s. Sure lets say he was "born this way", though there is clearly some environmental story you could tell there too.
Late bloomer guy: Lived a normal life met wife in graduate school had kids, got into gay porn in his 50s online, spent a lot of time on that, wife wanted divorce but he didn't, kind of wanted to stayed married and having sex with her, but also go out and rail guys regularly. No go for her. Get the impression he just loves having sex and it is so much easier with men than women and he is attracted to that gay culture. Seems like born bi-sexual/hypersexual dude?
Close female family member 1: Totally hetero childhood, though it was crummy and more than a bit neglectful. Heavily into drug use in teens/20s, definitely into guys, gets knocked up by band mate. They eventually get married, turns out he was cheating on her constantly the whole time with her close friend. She hates men for a while, then tries to get back into dating in early 30s as single mother, really unimpressed with her options. Has career in leftist political activism.
Meets rich successful lesbian who is put together and interested in her. Is now a lesbian though it has to be one of the least outwardly "romantic" relationships I have ever seen. Not remotely convinced this person was "born lesbian". Would take a huge bet against that.
Close female family member 2: Awkward mildly autistic girl, bit of a tomboy. Barely stumbled through HS, fails/dropout of college repeatedly. In love with her female best friend who is hetero for years in teens/20s/early 30s. Meanwhile living with stoner male friend for almost all of this time. Relationship with him seems entirely platonic, but hard to say for sure and she firmly identifies as a lesbian though never really dates any women and just pines after this one old female friend who is married and has kids and has zero interest. At some point it becomes clear that her and guy she has been living with for almost two decades at this point are a sexual couple and not just the platonic roommates it seemed they were for at least a decade. She goes back to college and completes it and in late 30s they seem almost like a normal couple other than they have been living together for 20 years and aren't married. Seems like maybe born a lesbian but chooses not to be one? Bi-sexual? Just someone who only has tolerance for a few people in the whole world?
College female friend: Kind of odd alternative lefty girl, adopted. Flirted with lesbianism and being super butch in college and right before/after. Super into lesbianism for a while. Met one good guy and became total normal vanilla hetero lady. So not born this way?
Bonus trans example: Girl who was raised pretty rough, was definitely pretty masculine/tomboyish had two very crummy relationships after HS including moving in with an abusive guy on the other side of the country. Came out of that deciding she was a boy, dressing like a man, wanting to get surgery, got pretty far down that road in about 2005 and then met a decent couple of guys and decided she was a girl again and has been very happy for 15+ years. Hetero married and even thinking about having kids. Definitely easily could have been a "trans person" if things worked out slightly different, and definitely wasn't "born that way". Also would generally say like most "tomboys" even when she was at her most masculine, she was much closer to being a girl in overall behavior/demeanor/outlook than a guy. Like a tomboy is typically still like 80% girl if you get what I mean.
I would also point out that some people think women tend to have more fluid sexualities than men, which is something these examples from my life also seem to indicate.
And I can see someone say like "why you got to define everything, just let people be people! Which sure that is one way to go about it. But then you can't make these hard and fast demarcations/contrasts between the different things. Gays see the trans movement turn what would have 15 years ago been additional gays trans and say "hang on a minute some of this is clearly environmental/social, they definitely weren't all born this way". Yet literally for the exact same reasons people were saying that about homosexuality 20 years ago. It is a delicate pinhead to dance on.
And to be clear I tend to agree with you that there is a difference in the populations, and that in particular because "trans" often involves permanent life changes, there are much higher stakes and need for caution.
Your bullet points are a great reply to use when people parrot that ol' chestnut, 'trans people have always existed!!!'
Brilliantly articulated, Arty. Thank you.