Excellent article, great research. I have only one comment. You write: "...from a classical feminist perspective, sex is a physiological datum that cannot be changed, but stereotypes and gender norms can be questioned and challenged. This is the spirit underlying texts such as the Woman's Declaration, an international declaration of women rights based on biological sex. Many lesbian and homosexual movements are also part of this classical feminist tradition."
"Sex is a physiological datum that cannot be changed." This is true. It is an actual, objective, biological fact, not a perspective. That classical feminism relies on this fact is important, but classical feminism is a consequence of this fact. The fact comes first.
Any so-called doctor, professor of medicine, psychologist or public health "expert" who refuses to acknowledge the enduring truth of this fact has been ideologically captured. They are lying. End of story.
I wonder if lying is the correct word. If they're ideologically captured, aren't they in their own state of cognitive dissonance? Is that the same as lying? I guess they're lying to themselves? I do think some are lying. I think most are now doubling down as the horror of what they've been up to is rising in their awareness.
Justjen, I understand the distinction you’re mulling over, and I’m happy to reply. I stand by my terminology. I'm not talking about middle school students who spend the majority of their time online being brainwashed by transgender activists on Tumblr and Reddit, or college students who have been marinating in critical theory since high school or before, whose institutions force them into DEI trainings during orientation week. Those young, unformed people are ideologically captured, period. Without strong and well-presented counterweights, they don't stand a chance.
No, I’m talking about credentialed, experienced, medical professionals for whom basic human biology and human evolution form the basis of their canon and practice. They know what’s true and what’s false. They know there are two sexes, male and female, which are immutable and essential for human survivor for all time. Hence, when they endorse gender theory, they are lying. The ideological capture stems from a grab bag of personal motivations and justifications: greed, self-aggrandizement, fear of being cancelled (i.e., cowardice), or what may be the worst sin of all, a heartfelt desire to be seen as progressive and kind, which leads them to suppress or replace everything they know to be true with bogus studies and false claims.
I think they are then in the "lying to themselves" camp. I don't believe most (though I'm sure some are capable) humans would knowingly afflict this level of harm on others unless they're able to convince themselves they're doing the "right" thing. I'm not trying to excuse them; I'm just trying to better understand them so as to be able to communicate with them in a way that doesn't cause them to get defensive and double-down. The people I know in person that fall into this camp, from what I can tell, truly believe they are being progressive and kind. Can I spot the savior complex? Absolutely. I've got a few right now that I can tell are very challenged by the points I bring to the conversation. They're starting to resist the conversations because they're so uncomfortable. It's a long game that takes patience and I have to keep backing off in order to not scare them off. And I can't look at them and think, "Liar," because they'll sense that energy from me and I won't be able to disarm them. Make sense? Thank you so much for this reply! I appreciate this opportunity to "talk" through my own thoughts on this.
I agree that it would be difficult or maybe impossible to have a respectful conversation with somebody you believe is disingenuous. If your goal is to have productive conversations, then it absolutely makes sense to try to take them seriously and meet them where they are. This reminds me of Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay's advice in their book "How To Have Impossible Conversations," which counsels us to ask questions of the person we disagree with, until we can articulate their beliefs as well as they can; in other words, to steel-man their argument in order to open up a window of trust. That's the "long game" you speak of.
Personally, I find it impossible from a logical standpoint to believe that very well-educated medical professionals in the biological sciences could take transgender ideology seriously without having made a decision very early on to suppress what they know is true in order to derive some kind of payoff. In this case, the payoff would be a feeling of being especially kind, progressive and helpful. The siren song of progressivism and the feeling of moral superiority it offers can be very compelling. If one strives obsessively to be good, one has to suppress the fact that they're lying, because good people don't lie.
But given your goal, I agree that it's better if you can see them as well meaning, rather than disingenuous. I don't think I can do this, because then I would be lying to myself! But there could be a middle ground where, using my common sense, compassion could win out over fury, since my ultimate goal is to protect the well being of women and children.
Excellent article! Merci à l'auteur! Où peut-on trouver le texte original en français?
Excellent article, great research. I have only one comment. You write: "...from a classical feminist perspective, sex is a physiological datum that cannot be changed, but stereotypes and gender norms can be questioned and challenged. This is the spirit underlying texts such as the Woman's Declaration, an international declaration of women rights based on biological sex. Many lesbian and homosexual movements are also part of this classical feminist tradition."
"Sex is a physiological datum that cannot be changed." This is true. It is an actual, objective, biological fact, not a perspective. That classical feminism relies on this fact is important, but classical feminism is a consequence of this fact. The fact comes first.
Any so-called doctor, professor of medicine, psychologist or public health "expert" who refuses to acknowledge the enduring truth of this fact has been ideologically captured. They are lying. End of story.
I wonder if lying is the correct word. If they're ideologically captured, aren't they in their own state of cognitive dissonance? Is that the same as lying? I guess they're lying to themselves? I do think some are lying. I think most are now doubling down as the horror of what they've been up to is rising in their awareness.
Justjen, I understand the distinction you’re mulling over, and I’m happy to reply. I stand by my terminology. I'm not talking about middle school students who spend the majority of their time online being brainwashed by transgender activists on Tumblr and Reddit, or college students who have been marinating in critical theory since high school or before, whose institutions force them into DEI trainings during orientation week. Those young, unformed people are ideologically captured, period. Without strong and well-presented counterweights, they don't stand a chance.
No, I’m talking about credentialed, experienced, medical professionals for whom basic human biology and human evolution form the basis of their canon and practice. They know what’s true and what’s false. They know there are two sexes, male and female, which are immutable and essential for human survivor for all time. Hence, when they endorse gender theory, they are lying. The ideological capture stems from a grab bag of personal motivations and justifications: greed, self-aggrandizement, fear of being cancelled (i.e., cowardice), or what may be the worst sin of all, a heartfelt desire to be seen as progressive and kind, which leads them to suppress or replace everything they know to be true with bogus studies and false claims.
I think they are then in the "lying to themselves" camp. I don't believe most (though I'm sure some are capable) humans would knowingly afflict this level of harm on others unless they're able to convince themselves they're doing the "right" thing. I'm not trying to excuse them; I'm just trying to better understand them so as to be able to communicate with them in a way that doesn't cause them to get defensive and double-down. The people I know in person that fall into this camp, from what I can tell, truly believe they are being progressive and kind. Can I spot the savior complex? Absolutely. I've got a few right now that I can tell are very challenged by the points I bring to the conversation. They're starting to resist the conversations because they're so uncomfortable. It's a long game that takes patience and I have to keep backing off in order to not scare them off. And I can't look at them and think, "Liar," because they'll sense that energy from me and I won't be able to disarm them. Make sense? Thank you so much for this reply! I appreciate this opportunity to "talk" through my own thoughts on this.
I agree that it would be difficult or maybe impossible to have a respectful conversation with somebody you believe is disingenuous. If your goal is to have productive conversations, then it absolutely makes sense to try to take them seriously and meet them where they are. This reminds me of Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay's advice in their book "How To Have Impossible Conversations," which counsels us to ask questions of the person we disagree with, until we can articulate their beliefs as well as they can; in other words, to steel-man their argument in order to open up a window of trust. That's the "long game" you speak of.
Personally, I find it impossible from a logical standpoint to believe that very well-educated medical professionals in the biological sciences could take transgender ideology seriously without having made a decision very early on to suppress what they know is true in order to derive some kind of payoff. In this case, the payoff would be a feeling of being especially kind, progressive and helpful. The siren song of progressivism and the feeling of moral superiority it offers can be very compelling. If one strives obsessively to be good, one has to suppress the fact that they're lying, because good people don't lie.
But given your goal, I agree that it's better if you can see them as well meaning, rather than disingenuous. I don't think I can do this, because then I would be lying to myself! But there could be a middle ground where, using my common sense, compassion could win out over fury, since my ultimate goal is to protect the well being of women and children.