In “Why is this happening to my family?” (published on PITT August 9) I mentioned a possible connection between politics and trans-identification. Now I share my old data on the “demand” for trans among youth, plus new data on the “supply” of trans among medical professionals. Data sharpens the question of where this problem came from — and more importantly
The Biden administration is getting ready to argue that taxpayer dollars should be used to pay for children to undergo so-called “gender transitions.”
According to Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, the Biden administration believes that “all children and adults should be afforded life-saving, medically necessary care” and “payers, both public and private, should cover treatments which medical experts have determined to be medically necessary.”
Becerra revealed this position in written testimony to Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.), which was obtained by The Daily Caller.
This position signals that the Biden administration is prepared to go after states that are protecting children from chemical castration and surgical mutilation at the same time other countries—like the United Kingdom, Sweden, and France—are no longer embracing the practice due to the permanent negative health effects these so-called treatments cause.
Recent polling suggests that a plurality of Americans oppose transgender treatments for minors.
“Biden’s HHS Secretary has now confirmed that the Biden Administration is using taxpayer dollars to push young children to have sex change operations and take dangerous chemicals that do permanent damage to their bodies. The Biden Administration even supports allowing these procedures to occur without parental consent. American taxpayer dollars should never fund puberty blockers and sex change surgeries on minor children,” Rep. Miller said in a statement to the Daily Caller.
It's not just about political identity, but status. The kids are coming to "trans" because it has been approved by the elites as a a means to gain status. Teenagers crave status more than anything, because they lack any, so they act impulsively to get it and reject sound guidance to chase it. Blue families are smaller, and the status of having a "special child" appeals to those parents. Dylan Mulvaney goes from unknown mediocrity to White House guest with tampon endorsement deals in 222 days, a massive jump in status. "Blue America" likes "trans" because it is an elite movement. White, middle class people get to reject their "whiteness," take on a new identity, look down on the red staters, and maintain all their First World privileges.
Agree 100%. Who could imagine that the hours my granddaughter spent drawing could have initiated her into this state of mind and entrance into this XXX community? Am I an accomplice for encouraging a hobby and sending art supplies for her to use. And her Japanese language classes in school...is that where this new life was created???? OMG....
This cult started with widespread acceptance of deviant sexual behavior. Thomas Sowel said their are no solutions, only tradeoffs. You can either have a society where traditional marriage and family is held up as the ideal and homosexuals stay in the closet or a society where anything goes/ do what you want, do it in the road and children are sexual beings. Their is no middle ground, if you think their is you are delusional.
If left unchecked we will continue to culturally disintegrate and eventually be conquered by a nation that doesn't fly rainbow flags over their military bases or embrace critical gender theory in their leadership ranks.
Most people live in the center and are particularly conservative when it comes to their children. Those with some common sense know intuitively that this is crazy. They fear the backlash and the crazed jackals screeching “homophobe, transphobe, blah blah, apparently the perfect path to submission of the masses . “Groomer” is the perfect adjective and is exactly what is occurring. To soften it is to shield the offenders. I saw where a radical politician who supports all things trans was quite offended by this term on Twitter. Hmmm, dost thou protest too much? . People don’t like being called groomer, that’s how you know it’s the right term. Its time to go on the offense. Grooming is exactly what is occurring and men in dresses with intact penises wanting to be lesbians are the creepiest (and loudest). Children aren’t the only ones being groomed, parents are too. It takes a brave few to call it out, but that’s how the tide gets turned back.
As a member of Red America, I have half a mind to say: "OK, you're right. Go solve it!" Team Blue (to use your terminology) controls every major institution in America. This is happening on Blue's watch, not Red's. However, maimed children really piss me off, so I can't do that.
There is something liberals can do right now to end this: stop voting for Team Blue! You're right -- Team Blue is in charge. And Team Blue will stop slicing the private parts off teenagers as soon as any significant percentage of its members start withholding their votes. That means becoming a single-issue voter. You may have to hold your nose and vote for someone you disagree with on everything else. (I've done that many times; you can learn.) American elections are within 1-2% points all the time now; blue can't afford to lose even a small fraction of their voters. But until you liberals are willing to show them you will defect -- to pull the lever for a pro-life Christian for Congress because she's the only one willing to use governmental power to stop this cult -- the cult will continue to win. And children will keep being maimed.
Team Red has done everything it can. It's up to you now.
And BTW: Team Red never gave up the language. We still talk about sex and not gender.
sorry: Team Blue controls every major institution????? Since when?
That's just hokum.
Fact is: USA is controlled by blood sucking capitalists who will do whatever they want -- including destroying our living world, ecocide, and chopping off genitals...
Have you noticed that the bloodsucking capitalists that run Fortune 500 are all woke advocates and celebrate the trans cult?
When I said "every major institution", I was talking about the major media, the K-12 education system, the universities, corporate boards, NGOs, the NSF and "science" Inc, all major tech companies, the arts infrastructure, the US Congress, and the White House. That covers the vast majority of cultural and political institutions in America.
Conservatives and Christians have absolutely no comparable cultural influence.
Did I understand this incorrectly? Are you really saying that only 0.5 to 3% of youth, identify as transgender today? If so, that is a massive relief to me, as I thought the figure was much higher than that. The anecdotal reports of groups of friends in every year of public schools implies, it is a much higher figure.
Excellent analysis. Your graphics were fascinating and clearly showed the vast red-blue divide. However, as you made clear, no child is safe from this, even those in Wyoming, because all our kids have access to the same online influences and influencers. I agree that pornography is a huge factor for both boys and girls and look forward to your taking that topic on in the future.
I'm feeling sorry for my home state of WA, it aspires to much higher numbers but is being held back by the less-populated and rural eastern half of the state. Trans is also an "urban" issue.
Thank you from another data geek.
Off-the-chart numbers in NY are important because, as we know, that's where so much news originates. And DC is were legislation originates. These two places deserve extra vigilance from anyone hoping to turn this hideous tide.
Yes, and the key variable in those jurisdictions is now the huge number of parents who’ve affirmed their trans-identified children and are ready to go scorched earth before backing down. I get it. I regret not being more critical with my trans-identified students at an earlier date. Now a child of mine has declared a trans ID even tho he knows of my skepticism. I’m feeling so terribly lost.
I'm so sorry. I wish we could find the easy and successful path to turn this corner. What I do know is that PITT is here for you now, and wasn't 2 yrs ago. Its not a silver bullet, but its a place to be heard by people who do care. Try hard not to give yourself too much of the responsibility for this. You are one of the victims and not one of the perpatrators and you need compassion and consolation too. I know its hard not to second guess yourself. All parents know that temptation--Woulda coulda shoulda. Please try to tell yourself you have done ok.
You are right. NY and DC parents want the best for their kids and they believe its more affirmation, scroched earth, like you say. But there are parents like you in NY and DC too.
I'd like to propose an alternate tack, though I don't really disagree about sticking to dictionary definitions. The problem with sticking to dictionary definitions is that you end up talking past people. I propose asking questions about practical matters: "I understand why historically people with large gametes were separated from people with small gametes for purposes of enclosed private spaces, like locker rooms and prisons - we want to avoid rape and pregnancy by rape. I understand why sports have been segregated by gamete size as well - because of strength differences. And I would not argue that gender doesn't exist, although I don't personally have an internal sense of gender identity, but I don't understand why an internal sense of anything would be a practical basis for segregation of enclosed spaces or sports. Could you help me understand?" And also "I am not expected to care as to whether or not someone considers themselves to be nice, or honest, and I have an idea of what it means to be nice or honest. When someone I perceive to be a man tells me he is a woman, I know he doesn't mean he has large gametes, he means something else, something undefinable. Since no one can even tell me what it really means to be a man woman or NB, I don't understand why I should I care whether someone identifies as a man, a woman, a they, or any other gender identity. I know what it means to have large or small gametes, and I do make decisions for my personal safety based on my perceptions of sex, as well as other factors. But why should I make decisions based on what someone tells me about himself? Help me understand, please."
I'm an old far-lefty with a science background. I completely agree, especially with the idea that Democrats are essential to this fight. Thanks very much for this post!
Here's one way to fight the gender doublespeak. Rely on standard dictionaries.
They all define the words "men" and "women" biologically. Men are male, women are female. And yes, "male" and "female" are only defined biologically -- females can produce eggs and offspring. These terms apply to millions of species and are fundamental to biology. These definitions mean a male cannot become a female (and vice versa) so a man cannot become a woman. No standard dictionary allows any loopholes. Anyone who criticizes you for saying this is criticizing you for using standard English as defined by every dictionary. Such criticism is pure intolerance and should be called out.
But "gender identity" is more difficult. That's a new term with no accepted definition. Same with "trans-woman." One line of attack is to demand a set of clear definitions -- this always produces nonsense, like "Anyone who says they are gender G is truly gender G." But we need our own terms for people who claim to be gender Q or fluid or non-binary or trinary. Without alternatives, their terms will dominate.
"Here's one way to fight the gender doublespeak. Rely on standard dictionaries."
The difficulty associated with your eminently reasonable suggestion, Steven, is that standard dictionaries have become malleable in the electronic age, to a degree that was formerly impractical.
Resort to established definition has always been the path to clarity and precision of speech. It forms the basis of a legitimate appeal to authority. I don't disagree with your premise, but redefinition appears to have become a conveniently accessible means of rapidly reshaping public discourse.
This observation doesn't negate the utility of relying on standardization, but the increasing velocity of change presents challenges that weren't present when you and I were young.
"Without alternatives, their terms will dominate."
It would be helpful if more people understood this. The last word in the above sentence captures the essence of the current zeitgeist; domination at an epistemic level. I'm not insensitive to the nature of linguistic adaptation and evolution, and I would surmise that you are unlikely to be so. If you have any insight regarding the maintenance of persistent standardization, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the matter. It seems to me, that we're facing yet another wicked problem.
Hi Ted. I completely agree with your comment. Since I wrote my comment, the Cambridge dictionary has added: woman - an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth.
It is still possible to argue that no-one should be punished for using a standard English definition because the real definition is still in all the dictionaries.
I'm mostly working on a more comprehensive critique of CRT. If you're interested, you can reach me at steven (at) stoft . com. I'd be interested to hear from you.
You are someone who seems to understand where all this is going. But please, please can you explain WHY the left is so intent on fulfilling their agenda through our children? Are they such failures that they can’t think of any other way? Democrats are so evil and dangerous because they lie to themselves. #saveourchildren
"can you explain WHY the left is so intent on fulfilling their agenda through our children?"
The way that comments link within this forum make it difficult for me to know if your request was addressed to Steven or myself, Mindy, so please forgive me if I am intruding on your conversation with another, by responding.
My own view is that it's complicated by the distinction between ideology and individual value structures. Ideology is concerned with categories, not individuals. The adherents to any given ideology become so because they consider it to be in alignment with their "values."
"Values" are inculcated, by which I mean "instilled by influences outside of themselves." One word for this process of inculcation is "indoctrination." We must consider this process very carefully, for we are each and every one of us subjected to it.
Wherever wealth and influence concentrate, opportunists congregate. That wealth and influence originates with the actions of individuals. If we think of those individuals as belonging to the category of primary stakeholders, we might consider the congregating opportunists to be those seeking to benefit from influencing the flow of accumulated wealth away from the controlling interest (influence) of the the stakeholders. This will seem obvious to you, but it's worth noting because it's all too easy to make category errors when we try to sort it out. It isn't necessary to own something to control it to one's own advantage.
Back to motivation; all value structures have a hierarchy. The ordering of specific values within a hierarchy is determined by a combination of assigned duties; to self, other individuals and the group (the sum of all individuals.) It's not always obvious to an individual, how to determine which duty applies to any given situation, and this is where the imposition of doctrine and ideology direct specific individual responses to varying stimuli.
Setting aside the categories of "left and right," let's look at an apex value, say.....compassion. How does any given individual express that value?
Doctrine and ideology are inextricably intertwined with choice architecture, which is to say; the ordering of methodological response (what the individual does, specifically, in resolving difficulties.)
One of the best examples of this is described in the classic "Trolley Problem." Are you familiar with it, Mindy? You are standing on a hill with a lever next to you that controls a railway switch at the bottom of that hill. The switch controls the direction of the trolley.
In front of you, a trolley is descending the hill on its track. The brakes on the trolley have failed. If you do nothing, the trolley will kill ten people who are tied to the track beyond the switch. If you pull the lever, the trolley will be shunted onto a siding where five people are tied to the track, and they will die under the wheels of the trolley.
What is the "correct" thing to do, pull the handle and kill five, or do nothing and allow ten to die?
The basis for one's decision is often referred to as a "utilitarian calculus." There are only two actions allowed within the choice architecture presented.
What choice is made, and why?
The answer to "why" is predicated on one's sense of duty.
Now we come to the heart of the matter. If the apex motivation is compassion, how does one categorize their duty? This question has to do with agency. If we pull the lever, we are personally responsible for the death of five people. Within a strictly utilitarian calculus, we have done our duty by killing those five; we have saved a sum total of five lives (the minimum number of deaths will always be five, regardless of our decision.)
But what if our apex value forbids the taking of any life? Do we remain true to our values, or do we not? This conundrum is a confrontation with moral hazard.
The relevance of the trolley problem to the genital mutilation, chemical castration and lifelong health problems resulting from "gender transition" lies in the choice architecture presented. When we think about sincerely compassionate individuals confronted with a choice between encouraging transition and the potential for their inaction to result in a self-inflicted death from despair, we are reflecting on a variation of the Trolley Problem.
Let's look at this choice architecture through a slightly different lens. Imagine you are a cardiologist that has just saved someone's life. Your patient's heart stopped because they had a blood clot in their LAD (left anterior descending) coronary artery. You put a catheter in the artery and cleared the blockage, and resuscitated your patient. They are alive, but while their heart was stopped, a large blood clot formed inside their heart because the blood stopped moving.
You stabilized the patient, prescribed high doses of anticoagulant medication and sent them home to recover, relying on the medication to dissolve that dangerous blood clot. If it doesn't dissolve, the patient will have another heart attack or a stroke. the clot is so large that death is nearly certain.
Your patient hemorrhages from the medication, their kidneys and bladder bleeding, and a weak blood vessel in their colon is also beginning to bleed. That deadly blood clot in their heart isn't completely dissolved yet. What do you do when the emergency room physician calls you to tell you that your patient's kidneys are close to failing?
What you know about this situation is that, if the kidneys fail, there is still dialysis to keep your patient alive, but that blood clot is death, because that's what heart failure means; death. You tell the ER physician not to reduce the medication.
Now to the point; the Trolley Problem is a choice architecture that presents a false dichotomy. There is another choice for the dysphoric and the cardiac patient, but it isn't presented. With the dysphoric, as with the cardiac patient, it's a race against time. Can a therapeutic modality eventually reduce that agonizing dysphoria to a more manageable dysmorphia before the patient becomes so desperate that they take their own life? Can an echocardiogram tell us if that blood clot has been dissolved so that we can reduce the anticoagulant dosage in our hemorrhaging patient and save both kidneys and heart?
These are specific cases, and applicable to individuals, not categories.
Back to "the children" and agendas; everyone gets indoctrinated as children. Ultimately, the value structure that we clumsily refer to as "right or left" is a matter of apex value; responsibility to group (categories) or individuals.
Those of us that are individualists will indoctrinate our progeny accordingly. Those of us that are collectivists will also instantiate our value structure within the conceptual framework of our offspring.
This response is overlong, and if you've read this far, I thank you and beg your indulgence. For a deeper understanding of the fundamental differences in choice architecture described above, a reading of Karl Marx and his contemporary, the Transcendentalist Ralph Waldo Emerson, may be helpful.
There are only a few who are "intent on fulfilling their agenda through children and various other nefarious strategies." They do lie to themselves, and don't know they are. They are on the Marxist track. Most Democrats are on the Lincoln, TR, FDR, JFK-LBK, MLK, Obama track -- all were very anti-Marxist, anti-socialist. But most of them (and I think most people) are very gullible, and they only hear the propaganda of the Marxist track. They don't even know what the agenda is. I know quite a few and they are not evil, they have been duped -- as the saying goes. You can get some insight into them here:
Your thoughts have some validity, and discussion is appreciated, but anyone who blinds themselves so much that they cannot see the pain it has caused to so many must be the lowest form of life.
The White House is doubling down:
"The Biden Administration Wants Taxpayers to Pay for Transgender Child Mutilation"
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2022/12/05/the-biden-administration-wants-taxpayers-to-pay-for-transgender-child-mutilation-n1650915
The Biden administration is getting ready to argue that taxpayer dollars should be used to pay for children to undergo so-called “gender transitions.”
According to Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, the Biden administration believes that “all children and adults should be afforded life-saving, medically necessary care” and “payers, both public and private, should cover treatments which medical experts have determined to be medically necessary.”
Becerra revealed this position in written testimony to Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.), which was obtained by The Daily Caller.
This position signals that the Biden administration is prepared to go after states that are protecting children from chemical castration and surgical mutilation at the same time other countries—like the United Kingdom, Sweden, and France—are no longer embracing the practice due to the permanent negative health effects these so-called treatments cause.
Recent polling suggests that a plurality of Americans oppose transgender treatments for minors.
“Biden’s HHS Secretary has now confirmed that the Biden Administration is using taxpayer dollars to push young children to have sex change operations and take dangerous chemicals that do permanent damage to their bodies. The Biden Administration even supports allowing these procedures to occur without parental consent. American taxpayer dollars should never fund puberty blockers and sex change surgeries on minor children,” Rep. Miller said in a statement to the Daily Caller.
It's not just about political identity, but status. The kids are coming to "trans" because it has been approved by the elites as a a means to gain status. Teenagers crave status more than anything, because they lack any, so they act impulsively to get it and reject sound guidance to chase it. Blue families are smaller, and the status of having a "special child" appeals to those parents. Dylan Mulvaney goes from unknown mediocrity to White House guest with tampon endorsement deals in 222 days, a massive jump in status. "Blue America" likes "trans" because it is an elite movement. White, middle class people get to reject their "whiteness," take on a new identity, look down on the red staters, and maintain all their First World privileges.
I think there is something to what you are saying... It sounds like a very short summary of the author's original linked article:
"Why is this happening to my family?
A viral tweet suggests a new theory of race-based social identity threat and identity exit
Aug 9"
https://pitt.substack.com/p/why-is-this-happening-to-my-family?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Agree 100%. Who could imagine that the hours my granddaughter spent drawing could have initiated her into this state of mind and entrance into this XXX community? Am I an accomplice for encouraging a hobby and sending art supplies for her to use. And her Japanese language classes in school...is that where this new life was created???? OMG....
This cult started with widespread acceptance of deviant sexual behavior. Thomas Sowel said their are no solutions, only tradeoffs. You can either have a society where traditional marriage and family is held up as the ideal and homosexuals stay in the closet or a society where anything goes/ do what you want, do it in the road and children are sexual beings. Their is no middle ground, if you think their is you are delusional.
If left unchecked we will continue to culturally disintegrate and eventually be conquered by a nation that doesn't fly rainbow flags over their military bases or embrace critical gender theory in their leadership ranks.
Yes!!!! 100% “Reds can’t sit this out, Reds must fight this cult. Blues must fight this cult. We can squabble later, after our children are safe.” 👏
Most people live in the center and are particularly conservative when it comes to their children. Those with some common sense know intuitively that this is crazy. They fear the backlash and the crazed jackals screeching “homophobe, transphobe, blah blah, apparently the perfect path to submission of the masses . “Groomer” is the perfect adjective and is exactly what is occurring. To soften it is to shield the offenders. I saw where a radical politician who supports all things trans was quite offended by this term on Twitter. Hmmm, dost thou protest too much? . People don’t like being called groomer, that’s how you know it’s the right term. Its time to go on the offense. Grooming is exactly what is occurring and men in dresses with intact penises wanting to be lesbians are the creepiest (and loudest). Children aren’t the only ones being groomed, parents are too. It takes a brave few to call it out, but that’s how the tide gets turned back.
They aren't feminists. Not that you and me are really the ones to judge, having been assigned male at birth ;-)
You believe in gender ideology yourself. I'm not afraid of what tiredofdeceit calls screaming jackals.
What are you talking about?
and its GLOBAL!!
As a member of Red America, I have half a mind to say: "OK, you're right. Go solve it!" Team Blue (to use your terminology) controls every major institution in America. This is happening on Blue's watch, not Red's. However, maimed children really piss me off, so I can't do that.
There is something liberals can do right now to end this: stop voting for Team Blue! You're right -- Team Blue is in charge. And Team Blue will stop slicing the private parts off teenagers as soon as any significant percentage of its members start withholding their votes. That means becoming a single-issue voter. You may have to hold your nose and vote for someone you disagree with on everything else. (I've done that many times; you can learn.) American elections are within 1-2% points all the time now; blue can't afford to lose even a small fraction of their voters. But until you liberals are willing to show them you will defect -- to pull the lever for a pro-life Christian for Congress because she's the only one willing to use governmental power to stop this cult -- the cult will continue to win. And children will keep being maimed.
Team Red has done everything it can. It's up to you now.
And BTW: Team Red never gave up the language. We still talk about sex and not gender.
sorry: Team Blue controls every major institution????? Since when?
That's just hokum.
Fact is: USA is controlled by blood sucking capitalists who will do whatever they want -- including destroying our living world, ecocide, and chopping off genitals...
Have you noticed that the bloodsucking capitalists that run Fortune 500 are all woke advocates and celebrate the trans cult?
When I said "every major institution", I was talking about the major media, the K-12 education system, the universities, corporate boards, NGOs, the NSF and "science" Inc, all major tech companies, the arts infrastructure, the US Congress, and the White House. That covers the vast majority of cultural and political institutions in America.
Conservatives and Christians have absolutely no comparable cultural influence.
My thoughts on Kanye is he deliberately decided to employ scorched earth tactics, in others words he seems out to ruin those he was associated with in business and in politics. Check out my podcast fot details. https://open.substack.com/pub/justingaffneysamuels/p/kanyes-scorched-earth-tactics-burn?r=6512g&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Did I understand this incorrectly? Are you really saying that only 0.5 to 3% of youth, identify as transgender today? If so, that is a massive relief to me, as I thought the figure was much higher than that. The anecdotal reports of groups of friends in every year of public schools implies, it is a much higher figure.
Excellent analysis. Your graphics were fascinating and clearly showed the vast red-blue divide. However, as you made clear, no child is safe from this, even those in Wyoming, because all our kids have access to the same online influences and influencers. I agree that pornography is a huge factor for both boys and girls and look forward to your taking that topic on in the future.
Porno and ANIME. Anime is possibly worse because people don't see it as a threat.
I'm feeling sorry for my home state of WA, it aspires to much higher numbers but is being held back by the less-populated and rural eastern half of the state. Trans is also an "urban" issue.
Thank you from another data geek.
Off-the-chart numbers in NY are important because, as we know, that's where so much news originates. And DC is were legislation originates. These two places deserve extra vigilance from anyone hoping to turn this hideous tide.
Yes, and the key variable in those jurisdictions is now the huge number of parents who’ve affirmed their trans-identified children and are ready to go scorched earth before backing down. I get it. I regret not being more critical with my trans-identified students at an earlier date. Now a child of mine has declared a trans ID even tho he knows of my skepticism. I’m feeling so terribly lost.
I'm so sorry. I wish we could find the easy and successful path to turn this corner. What I do know is that PITT is here for you now, and wasn't 2 yrs ago. Its not a silver bullet, but its a place to be heard by people who do care. Try hard not to give yourself too much of the responsibility for this. You are one of the victims and not one of the perpatrators and you need compassion and consolation too. I know its hard not to second guess yourself. All parents know that temptation--Woulda coulda shoulda. Please try to tell yourself you have done ok.
You are right. NY and DC parents want the best for their kids and they believe its more affirmation, scroched earth, like you say. But there are parents like you in NY and DC too.
I'd like to propose an alternate tack, though I don't really disagree about sticking to dictionary definitions. The problem with sticking to dictionary definitions is that you end up talking past people. I propose asking questions about practical matters: "I understand why historically people with large gametes were separated from people with small gametes for purposes of enclosed private spaces, like locker rooms and prisons - we want to avoid rape and pregnancy by rape. I understand why sports have been segregated by gamete size as well - because of strength differences. And I would not argue that gender doesn't exist, although I don't personally have an internal sense of gender identity, but I don't understand why an internal sense of anything would be a practical basis for segregation of enclosed spaces or sports. Could you help me understand?" And also "I am not expected to care as to whether or not someone considers themselves to be nice, or honest, and I have an idea of what it means to be nice or honest. When someone I perceive to be a man tells me he is a woman, I know he doesn't mean he has large gametes, he means something else, something undefinable. Since no one can even tell me what it really means to be a man woman or NB, I don't understand why I should I care whether someone identifies as a man, a woman, a they, or any other gender identity. I know what it means to have large or small gametes, and I do make decisions for my personal safety based on my perceptions of sex, as well as other factors. But why should I make decisions based on what someone tells me about himself? Help me understand, please."
This is excellent, thank you!
I'm an old far-lefty with a science background. I completely agree, especially with the idea that Democrats are essential to this fight. Thanks very much for this post!
Here's one way to fight the gender doublespeak. Rely on standard dictionaries.
They all define the words "men" and "women" biologically. Men are male, women are female. And yes, "male" and "female" are only defined biologically -- females can produce eggs and offspring. These terms apply to millions of species and are fundamental to biology. These definitions mean a male cannot become a female (and vice versa) so a man cannot become a woman. No standard dictionary allows any loopholes. Anyone who criticizes you for saying this is criticizing you for using standard English as defined by every dictionary. Such criticism is pure intolerance and should be called out.
But "gender identity" is more difficult. That's a new term with no accepted definition. Same with "trans-woman." One line of attack is to demand a set of clear definitions -- this always produces nonsense, like "Anyone who says they are gender G is truly gender G." But we need our own terms for people who claim to be gender Q or fluid or non-binary or trinary. Without alternatives, their terms will dominate.
"Here's one way to fight the gender doublespeak. Rely on standard dictionaries."
The difficulty associated with your eminently reasonable suggestion, Steven, is that standard dictionaries have become malleable in the electronic age, to a degree that was formerly impractical.
Resort to established definition has always been the path to clarity and precision of speech. It forms the basis of a legitimate appeal to authority. I don't disagree with your premise, but redefinition appears to have become a conveniently accessible means of rapidly reshaping public discourse.
This observation doesn't negate the utility of relying on standardization, but the increasing velocity of change presents challenges that weren't present when you and I were young.
"Without alternatives, their terms will dominate."
It would be helpful if more people understood this. The last word in the above sentence captures the essence of the current zeitgeist; domination at an epistemic level. I'm not insensitive to the nature of linguistic adaptation and evolution, and I would surmise that you are unlikely to be so. If you have any insight regarding the maintenance of persistent standardization, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the matter. It seems to me, that we're facing yet another wicked problem.
Hi Ted. I completely agree with your comment. Since I wrote my comment, the Cambridge dictionary has added: woman - an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth.
It is still possible to argue that no-one should be punished for using a standard English definition because the real definition is still in all the dictionaries.
I'm mostly working on a more comprehensive critique of CRT. If you're interested, you can reach me at steven (at) stoft . com. I'd be interested to hear from you.
You are someone who seems to understand where all this is going. But please, please can you explain WHY the left is so intent on fulfilling their agenda through our children? Are they such failures that they can’t think of any other way? Democrats are so evil and dangerous because they lie to themselves. #saveourchildren
"can you explain WHY the left is so intent on fulfilling their agenda through our children?"
The way that comments link within this forum make it difficult for me to know if your request was addressed to Steven or myself, Mindy, so please forgive me if I am intruding on your conversation with another, by responding.
My own view is that it's complicated by the distinction between ideology and individual value structures. Ideology is concerned with categories, not individuals. The adherents to any given ideology become so because they consider it to be in alignment with their "values."
"Values" are inculcated, by which I mean "instilled by influences outside of themselves." One word for this process of inculcation is "indoctrination." We must consider this process very carefully, for we are each and every one of us subjected to it.
Wherever wealth and influence concentrate, opportunists congregate. That wealth and influence originates with the actions of individuals. If we think of those individuals as belonging to the category of primary stakeholders, we might consider the congregating opportunists to be those seeking to benefit from influencing the flow of accumulated wealth away from the controlling interest (influence) of the the stakeholders. This will seem obvious to you, but it's worth noting because it's all too easy to make category errors when we try to sort it out. It isn't necessary to own something to control it to one's own advantage.
Back to motivation; all value structures have a hierarchy. The ordering of specific values within a hierarchy is determined by a combination of assigned duties; to self, other individuals and the group (the sum of all individuals.) It's not always obvious to an individual, how to determine which duty applies to any given situation, and this is where the imposition of doctrine and ideology direct specific individual responses to varying stimuli.
Setting aside the categories of "left and right," let's look at an apex value, say.....compassion. How does any given individual express that value?
Doctrine and ideology are inextricably intertwined with choice architecture, which is to say; the ordering of methodological response (what the individual does, specifically, in resolving difficulties.)
One of the best examples of this is described in the classic "Trolley Problem." Are you familiar with it, Mindy? You are standing on a hill with a lever next to you that controls a railway switch at the bottom of that hill. The switch controls the direction of the trolley.
In front of you, a trolley is descending the hill on its track. The brakes on the trolley have failed. If you do nothing, the trolley will kill ten people who are tied to the track beyond the switch. If you pull the lever, the trolley will be shunted onto a siding where five people are tied to the track, and they will die under the wheels of the trolley.
What is the "correct" thing to do, pull the handle and kill five, or do nothing and allow ten to die?
The basis for one's decision is often referred to as a "utilitarian calculus." There are only two actions allowed within the choice architecture presented.
What choice is made, and why?
The answer to "why" is predicated on one's sense of duty.
Now we come to the heart of the matter. If the apex motivation is compassion, how does one categorize their duty? This question has to do with agency. If we pull the lever, we are personally responsible for the death of five people. Within a strictly utilitarian calculus, we have done our duty by killing those five; we have saved a sum total of five lives (the minimum number of deaths will always be five, regardless of our decision.)
But what if our apex value forbids the taking of any life? Do we remain true to our values, or do we not? This conundrum is a confrontation with moral hazard.
The relevance of the trolley problem to the genital mutilation, chemical castration and lifelong health problems resulting from "gender transition" lies in the choice architecture presented. When we think about sincerely compassionate individuals confronted with a choice between encouraging transition and the potential for their inaction to result in a self-inflicted death from despair, we are reflecting on a variation of the Trolley Problem.
Let's look at this choice architecture through a slightly different lens. Imagine you are a cardiologist that has just saved someone's life. Your patient's heart stopped because they had a blood clot in their LAD (left anterior descending) coronary artery. You put a catheter in the artery and cleared the blockage, and resuscitated your patient. They are alive, but while their heart was stopped, a large blood clot formed inside their heart because the blood stopped moving.
You stabilized the patient, prescribed high doses of anticoagulant medication and sent them home to recover, relying on the medication to dissolve that dangerous blood clot. If it doesn't dissolve, the patient will have another heart attack or a stroke. the clot is so large that death is nearly certain.
Your patient hemorrhages from the medication, their kidneys and bladder bleeding, and a weak blood vessel in their colon is also beginning to bleed. That deadly blood clot in their heart isn't completely dissolved yet. What do you do when the emergency room physician calls you to tell you that your patient's kidneys are close to failing?
What you know about this situation is that, if the kidneys fail, there is still dialysis to keep your patient alive, but that blood clot is death, because that's what heart failure means; death. You tell the ER physician not to reduce the medication.
Now to the point; the Trolley Problem is a choice architecture that presents a false dichotomy. There is another choice for the dysphoric and the cardiac patient, but it isn't presented. With the dysphoric, as with the cardiac patient, it's a race against time. Can a therapeutic modality eventually reduce that agonizing dysphoria to a more manageable dysmorphia before the patient becomes so desperate that they take their own life? Can an echocardiogram tell us if that blood clot has been dissolved so that we can reduce the anticoagulant dosage in our hemorrhaging patient and save both kidneys and heart?
These are specific cases, and applicable to individuals, not categories.
Back to "the children" and agendas; everyone gets indoctrinated as children. Ultimately, the value structure that we clumsily refer to as "right or left" is a matter of apex value; responsibility to group (categories) or individuals.
Those of us that are individualists will indoctrinate our progeny accordingly. Those of us that are collectivists will also instantiate our value structure within the conceptual framework of our offspring.
This response is overlong, and if you've read this far, I thank you and beg your indulgence. For a deeper understanding of the fundamental differences in choice architecture described above, a reading of Karl Marx and his contemporary, the Transcendentalist Ralph Waldo Emerson, may be helpful.
...because children are easy to manipulate psychologically.
There are only a few who are "intent on fulfilling their agenda through children and various other nefarious strategies." They do lie to themselves, and don't know they are. They are on the Marxist track. Most Democrats are on the Lincoln, TR, FDR, JFK-LBK, MLK, Obama track -- all were very anti-Marxist, anti-socialist. But most of them (and I think most people) are very gullible, and they only hear the propaganda of the Marxist track. They don't even know what the agenda is. I know quite a few and they are not evil, they have been duped -- as the saying goes. You can get some insight into them here:
https://pitt.substack.com/p/true-believer
Anyway, thanks for being interested. Both sides need to understand the other side, but almost no one is trying.
Your final sentence, is absolutely true.
Your thoughts have some validity, and discussion is appreciated, but anyone who blinds themselves so much that they cannot see the pain it has caused to so many must be the lowest form of life.
Be well.