Great article! These questions *will* need to be addressed at some point. Is now the right time? Well, that question deserves some careful thought. There's clearly a risk of diverting attention from more urgent issues, as long as the ideology is still alive and kicking children in the teeth. On the other hand, once the urgency has dimini…
Great article! These questions *will* need to be addressed at some point. Is now the right time? Well, that question deserves some careful thought. There's clearly a risk of diverting attention from more urgent issues, as long as the ideology is still alive and kicking children in the teeth. On the other hand, once the urgency has diminished, we could, as you say so clearly, "inadvertently spawn something in the future that’s even worse for our kids or grandkids."
Perhaps a way out of this dilemma involves incorporating the *right* structure, both in kind and quantity, today. A slightly different way to frame the concern is as revolving around the proper *scope* of the activities we need to include, to achieve our (right-sized) objectives. That way of thinking about these questions helps in two ways. First, we can clearly specify the "definition of done" - the markers that will indicate we have succeeded. Secondly, it can also help us to limit and prioritize the ways we expend limited resources on our way to achieving that outcome.
To my mind, at least as big a danger as outliving our effective usefulness is that we damage our current effectiveness by attempting to achieve too many different goals, thereby spreading ourselves too thin and increasing the likelihood of internal divisions. If the goals of this movement are clear, defined, and limited to only what is most critical, we will certainly be a movement of strange bedfellows, but we might also be a movement that keeps everyone in the same bed long enough to succeed.
I think we need to take back language. For instance, WilLiaM Thomas did not "transition to female". He took feminizing hormones and adopted a nickname. It is hard to fight against cult ideology in schools and medicalization when words based on reality have been taken from us. And, "using pronouns" has to go.
Great article! These questions *will* need to be addressed at some point. Is now the right time? Well, that question deserves some careful thought. There's clearly a risk of diverting attention from more urgent issues, as long as the ideology is still alive and kicking children in the teeth. On the other hand, once the urgency has diminished, we could, as you say so clearly, "inadvertently spawn something in the future that’s even worse for our kids or grandkids."
Perhaps a way out of this dilemma involves incorporating the *right* structure, both in kind and quantity, today. A slightly different way to frame the concern is as revolving around the proper *scope* of the activities we need to include, to achieve our (right-sized) objectives. That way of thinking about these questions helps in two ways. First, we can clearly specify the "definition of done" - the markers that will indicate we have succeeded. Secondly, it can also help us to limit and prioritize the ways we expend limited resources on our way to achieving that outcome.
To my mind, at least as big a danger as outliving our effective usefulness is that we damage our current effectiveness by attempting to achieve too many different goals, thereby spreading ourselves too thin and increasing the likelihood of internal divisions. If the goals of this movement are clear, defined, and limited to only what is most critical, we will certainly be a movement of strange bedfellows, but we might also be a movement that keeps everyone in the same bed long enough to succeed.
I think we need to take back language. For instance, WilLiaM Thomas did not "transition to female". He took feminizing hormones and adopted a nickname. It is hard to fight against cult ideology in schools and medicalization when words based on reality have been taken from us. And, "using pronouns" has to go.