Why oh why would the magazine that put Caitlyn Jenner "coming out" on its cover, and that celebrated Martine Rothblatt for being so successful on its cover, and that put Gabriel Mac on the cover nearly naked in her masculine underwear, run an article by Andrea Long Chu?
I am almost glad they did because the only two reactions a sane person with a couple of brain cells can have to Andrea's article are either 1. Wow, this is crazy 2. Wow, what a clever satire.
Eliza did a nice job of avoiding pronouns in the piece, but it would have been better if she had used the correct pronouns (he, him, his) and the correct name: Andrew Long Chu.
Dude is a man, no matter how many drugs he takes and surgeries he has.
And we are under no obligation to respect his misappropriation of a woman's name.
Give "her" both barrels .... 😉🙂 Haven't read the rest at Unherd yet, but you seem to be off to a good start on that score.
But that "change your sex" -- which "she" has apparently made the crux of "her" argument, and of WPATH's -- is what transwoman Helen Highwater once called the "vicious lie", and outright fraud, at the heart of the whole transgender movement. Which another pair of Helens, Dale and Joyce, once called a "civilization threatening/ending" one.
What really chaps my hide is that the article is labelled as "The Right to Change Sex" in the "Most Popular" table at the bottom. Arguably a case of crossing the Rubicon -- though maybe that's a benefit as it will be rather difficult for them to deny that they're peddling anti-scientific claptrap.
The writings of this person clearly demonstrate the severe underlying mental imbalances commonly found in many trans identifying people. Like an alcoholic or substance abuser misery likes company and encouraging or collaborating with others somehow alleviates their distress.Perhaps not as extreme as portrayed in "The Silence of the Lambs" Jame Gumb (Buffalo Bill) one is left to wonder at the seemingly strange compulsion to want others to suffer. I am a former trans identified male and am writing a strong warning to the danger of affirming a false gender identity. I speak from lived experience and the consequences of my actions (sex reassignment).I found inner peace at being myself in congruence with biology and truth.
There's a part of me that wants to send my crossdressing ex-husband a copy of that one. He's 69, been pretending to be me, the mother of our 2 grown sons, and promoted the concept that we all pass by lots of people who "pass" as the opposite sex every day, having no idea. Perhaps the long Long Chu blathering will peak someone. Please, God!
I sometimes think of the woman I might have married and possibly had a family with but know I never will. I think of you and the other women all who have lost your men to this strong delusion.
I haven't read the article, but does it ask for these "body changes" to be covered by insurance and Medicaid? And, if so, how do we distinguish these particular "body changes" from breast implants (for females), rhinoplasties (not to feminize male noses, but just for preferred nose shapes), Brazilian butt lifts (not to feminize or masculinize the butt, but just to enhance it), face lifts (again, not to feminize or masculinize), Botox, and on and on? If it does ask for this, what is the justification for covering purely cosmetic preferences? Does Chu rely on the "Gender Identity" theory, where anything that aligns with an undefined, undefinable amorphous notion in someone's head must be provided to that person?
And does the article also ask that these teens be able to get tattoos, piercings, etc., w/o parental consent? If not, why not? This would have to be because those things don't bring the body into alignment with a "Gender Identity" of sorts. Right?
If Chu is not relying on a Gender Identity, Is the idea that even teens should have full bodily autonomy, and that this includes the ability to change the body's appearance, to lop off parts and add fake parts, and to alter the chemical composition of the body, regardless of the consequences to the teen's health, just because, well, they want it? And, along with this, is the idea that society must facilitate every preference a teen has about the appearance of their body because to do otherwise would be cruel?
But just as applicable to Chu and his ilk. ICYMI, Mary Harrington has a decent analysis of Chu's rant, though I can't say I've read all of her piece -- quite a lot to chew through:
👍🙂 Share the wealth, praise the lord and pass the ammunition. 🙂
You might note the bottom of the New York Magazine article which explicitly labels it, in their "Most Popular" section, as "The Right to Change Sex". A bigger "Big Lie" is scarcely imaginable.
If "adults" want to turn themselves into sexless eunuchs then I guess they're entitled. But tricking children into thinking they can change sex is absolutely criminal.
Yes, the idea of freedom to change sex is a big lie, which is bad enough. However, the nonsensical notion that children should all have the freedom to "change" sex, even if that simply meant changing the appearance of one's sex, is also bizarre. As to adults having the right to become a eunuch, what I would say is that any adult can mutilate their own body if they want to, but society is not in any way obliged to assist in this. In fact, I would say that a better society would have nothing to do with facilitating such things. I would stress that society should not in any way discriminate against someone who self-mutilates, so jobs, housing, respect, etc. for such people must be the same as it is for anyone else. However, there is no reason society should ever help make this happen for adults. And preventing it from being done, if at all possible, by the young and vulnerable is appropriate and warrarnted.
I confess that I skipped over some of this article because it was just too damned infuriating to read it all. The number of mental gymnastics, distortions, illogical statements, etc. in the parts I did read is astounding. The overall idea seems to be that everyone, including children, must have the right to manipulate their body through whatever technology is available for that purpose, simply because, as I suspected, they want it! If it doesn't work out, so be it. If they regret it, who cares.
Young people must have the "freedom" - which really means the opportunity, provided by society at no cost - to manipulate their bodies to appear as the opposite sex simply because they want to do it. They must have this same "freedom" to avoid the consequences of nature - avoiding puberty - again, because they want it.
By this argument, I cannot see how Chu would not also argue that children should be free to take any drugs that exist if they are curious or think those drugs might be beneficial to them. They must be free to eat whatever they want when they want it. They must be free to live anywhere, to go bungy-jumping, to not go to school, to not go to sleep except when they feel like it, to have sex if they want to. Any parent that prevents any of this is being abusive and making inappropriate moral or "normative" judgments.
As long as the young person wants these body modifications, how can we not provide them (or the food they want, the drugs they want, the freedom to have sex, to avoid school, etc.)? In short, Chu seems to warn that society must give young people whatever they want when they want it, or we are being judgmental and unkind. What an insane article, written by a Pulitzer Prize winner. Wow, I am thinking those Prizes are given out way too easily at this point.
Hippiesq: "... way too easily at this point." 🙂 A depressing sign of the times.
But quite right on the absolutely "astounding" "number of mental gymnastics, distortions, illogical statements, etc.." I kind of bailed myself after seeing his periodic reliance on the "idea" of changing sex.
Hippiesq: "They must be free to eat whatever they want when they want it."
Exactly. Think we may have talked about this cartoon on "Progressive Parenting":
You may not have had time yet to read much of Harrington's post, but, on the basis of an earlier quick skim, she goes into some detail on various norms, and on the efforts of Chu and his ilk to try destroying them. Largely the theme of Stock's post on abolishing gender. Not all norms deserve promotion or being slavishly adhered to, but they often have some social utility, not least in inculcating some social responsibility.
Reminds me of a favourite quote from Eleanor Roosevelt:
“...our children must learn...to face full responsibility for their actions, to make their own choices and cope with the results...the whole democratic system...depends upon it. For our system is founded on self-government, which is untenable if the individuals who make up the system are unable to govern themselves.”
Let's hope the airing of Andrew Long Chu's deranged ideas cause the Overton Window to move in reverse for once in the direction of sanity and reasonableness.
Apart from simply owning the TERFs, could New York magazine have had any legitimate motive for publishing Andrew's piece of trash?
Is Chu a based undercover agent out to discredit the trans lobby? Is there anything outrageous or absurd enough to compel them to reconsider their position?
I briefly considered writing an article proposing selling hormones in vending machines on college campuses. However I was stopped by the fear that someone somewhere may take it seriously and decide it's a good idea.
Chu follows Masha Gessen in dismissing regret over missing body parts as just another part of life's vicissitudes. The oddest thing about the article is its timing. As Freddie DeBoer notes this isn't exactly the cultural moment for this essay. A corner may not have been turned but I don't think we're at the Chu stage of performative rhetorical exercises either.
Yes, Masha is a disappointment. I had enjoyed her analysis of Russian politics. But now, I can't take "theys" seriously. I am assuming she is on T--her appearance has changed.
Oh lord. I just read the first part of that article, and the insistence on merging the categories of sex and gender make it incomprehensible. We are all born with a gender--no. We are born with sexed bodies. What our societies make of them, what expectations and limitations are put on them, is what constitutes gender. I'm old enough to have not run into the concept of a "gender identity" until I was a fully grown adult; I assumed it only applied to trans people, for whom it is the most important thing in their lives. It never occurred to me to think in terms of gender identity for myself, and to this day I have nothing in my mind or soul which corresponds to it. I have a sex--female--but I have no gender identity. I have a mind; that's it.
I saw that this article had been linked at Metafilter, and sighed, because in Metafilter's terms I am a heretic on this particular issue and so I usually keep my mouth shut, not wanting to get thrown off the site. [Link is here: https://www.metafilter.com/202868/Political-demands-at-the-level-of-biology-itself] But during the discussion which followed, there was a demonstration, in miniature, of the -- I can't think of a better word-- histrionics which follow so often whenever transwomen assert themselves in public, that I wanted to... point at it, somehow.
The self-aggrandizement, the self-flattery, the strutting around over how their genitals are better than natural ones, that they are "shapeshifters and magicians and superheroes", who have "power that cis people never will. Power that frightens you. Challenges you. We have the ability to fundamentally change who we are." It makes me gag. And reassures me, again, that whoever the new transwomen are, they sure as hell haven't stopped acting like men. (I have changed who I am a number of times during the years of my life, and I would venture to say it's a human quality that is available to anyone, not just at the end of a pill bottle.) The abrupt and offended deleting of their profiles in protest of the ignorance of "cis people", the flouncing away. Over the last few years I've seen this happen over and over again on Mefi, while the mods bend over backwards, thanklessly, to placate them.
Nowhere in this discussion is it possible to raise the urgent questions that I want to. Puberty blockers are not benign. We know this. Disrupting a child's endocrine system so drastically cannot be harmless, and indeed it is not: medical services, such as the NHS, have chosen to stop prescribing them given the lack of any evidence that they are helpful. Adult transwomen often seem to be fantasizing backwards about how great their lives would be now if they hadn't had to go through male puberty; but let's look at the most famous case of this protocol, shall we? And here we run smack into Jazz Jennings, who, as a result of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones is UNABLE TO ORGASM. She has NO sexual feelings. She likely never will, and I consider that such a horrific violation of her human rights that I really don't have words for it. I am sure she had no idea what she was consenting to when she started taking those drugs; but as she grows older, and her peers and friends reach adulthood, and she begins to realize what has been stolen from her (imagine the sexless life which those who push puberty blockers somehow think acceptable) she may have a very rough road ahead. It breaks my heart, you know.
Of course, it needs to be said that it’s not possible to change sex. Chu’s fundamental premise is completely absurd.
And that is why there is no such thing as "trans." The whole thing is a fraud. All of it.
Why would New York magazine publish this?
Got hella clicks.
It's useful to all who are fighting against medical harms.
What will it take to peak trans people?
New York Magazine wrote a Marty Rothblatt profile piece on him when he published his "From Trangender to Transhuman."
Yep.
Why oh why would the magazine that put Caitlyn Jenner "coming out" on its cover, and that celebrated Martine Rothblatt for being so successful on its cover, and that put Gabriel Mac on the cover nearly naked in her masculine underwear, run an article by Andrea Long Chu?
A complete mystery, I tells ya
Andrew Long Chu. Bruce Jenner.
Gotta keep their cultural edginess moving forward, ahead of the herd. How else to survive the media business?
Onward, into the depths of hell!
the depths of hell. yes. it feels like that.
I am almost glad they did because the only two reactions a sane person with a couple of brain cells can have to Andrea's article are either 1. Wow, this is crazy 2. Wow, what a clever satire.
Andrew Long Chu is a man, not a woman. He stole a woman's name (Andrea) that he is not entitled to.
Oops, thanks Mark. My mistake. I edited the comment to take the word "woman" out.
Eliza did a nice job of avoiding pronouns in the piece, but it would have been better if she had used the correct pronouns (he, him, his) and the correct name: Andrew Long Chu.
Dude is a man, no matter how many drugs he takes and surgeries he has.
And we are under no obligation to respect his misappropriation of a woman's name.
If I were writing it here, I would have said he/him. UnHerd tries to avoid pronouns, which I'm OK with.
It's cool, you are doing indispensible front-line work. Thank you!
Odd, though, don't you think, since UnHerd isn't blindly following the herd?
How about "she" -- quote/unquote?
"strawmxn" lol
"Let anyone change their sex."
Give "her" both barrels .... 😉🙂 Haven't read the rest at Unherd yet, but you seem to be off to a good start on that score.
But that "change your sex" -- which "she" has apparently made the crux of "her" argument, and of WPATH's -- is what transwoman Helen Highwater once called the "vicious lie", and outright fraud, at the heart of the whole transgender movement. Which another pair of Helens, Dale and Joyce, once called a "civilization threatening/ending" one.
I can’t bring myself to give New York magazine the click. Maybe it’s wrong to want to avoid reading this insanity?
Thanks, again, Eliza, for doing the reading and engaging in the arguments. I’m cheering you from the sidelines.
Here's an archive link, though maybe moot whether the magazine gets any revenue from it or not:
https://archive.ph/FCaxE
What really chaps my hide is that the article is labelled as "The Right to Change Sex" in the "Most Popular" table at the bottom. Arguably a case of crossing the Rubicon -- though maybe that's a benefit as it will be rather difficult for them to deny that they're peddling anti-scientific claptrap.
The writings of this person clearly demonstrate the severe underlying mental imbalances commonly found in many trans identifying people. Like an alcoholic or substance abuser misery likes company and encouraging or collaborating with others somehow alleviates their distress.Perhaps not as extreme as portrayed in "The Silence of the Lambs" Jame Gumb (Buffalo Bill) one is left to wonder at the seemingly strange compulsion to want others to suffer. I am a former trans identified male and am writing a strong warning to the danger of affirming a false gender identity. I speak from lived experience and the consequences of my actions (sex reassignment).I found inner peace at being myself in congruence with biology and truth.
There's a part of me that wants to send my crossdressing ex-husband a copy of that one. He's 69, been pretending to be me, the mother of our 2 grown sons, and promoted the concept that we all pass by lots of people who "pass" as the opposite sex every day, having no idea. Perhaps the long Long Chu blathering will peak someone. Please, God!
I sometimes think of the woman I might have married and possibly had a family with but know I never will. I think of you and the other women all who have lost your men to this strong delusion.
I haven't read the article, but does it ask for these "body changes" to be covered by insurance and Medicaid? And, if so, how do we distinguish these particular "body changes" from breast implants (for females), rhinoplasties (not to feminize male noses, but just for preferred nose shapes), Brazilian butt lifts (not to feminize or masculinize the butt, but just to enhance it), face lifts (again, not to feminize or masculinize), Botox, and on and on? If it does ask for this, what is the justification for covering purely cosmetic preferences? Does Chu rely on the "Gender Identity" theory, where anything that aligns with an undefined, undefinable amorphous notion in someone's head must be provided to that person?
And does the article also ask that these teens be able to get tattoos, piercings, etc., w/o parental consent? If not, why not? This would have to be because those things don't bring the body into alignment with a "Gender Identity" of sorts. Right?
If Chu is not relying on a Gender Identity, Is the idea that even teens should have full bodily autonomy, and that this includes the ability to change the body's appearance, to lop off parts and add fake parts, and to alter the chemical composition of the body, regardless of the consequences to the teen's health, just because, well, they want it? And, along with this, is the idea that society must facilitate every preference a teen has about the appearance of their body because to do otherwise would be cruel?
The whole thing just sounds insane.
"barking (mad)" as Kathleen Stock put it, though she was referring to the efforts of radfems to "abolish gender":
https://kathleenstock.substack.com/p/lets-abolish-the-dream-of-gender
But just as applicable to Chu and his ilk. ICYMI, Mary Harrington has a decent analysis of Chu's rant, though I can't say I've read all of her piece -- quite a lot to chew through:
https://reactionaryfeminist.substack.com/p/strip-mining-children
An archive link of Chu's article at the New York Magazine:
https://archive.ph/FCaxE
Thanks, Steersman. Now I can read it for myself, as well as the other analysis! :)
👍🙂 Share the wealth, praise the lord and pass the ammunition. 🙂
You might note the bottom of the New York Magazine article which explicitly labels it, in their "Most Popular" section, as "The Right to Change Sex". A bigger "Big Lie" is scarcely imaginable.
If "adults" want to turn themselves into sexless eunuchs then I guess they're entitled. But tricking children into thinking they can change sex is absolutely criminal.
Yes, the idea of freedom to change sex is a big lie, which is bad enough. However, the nonsensical notion that children should all have the freedom to "change" sex, even if that simply meant changing the appearance of one's sex, is also bizarre. As to adults having the right to become a eunuch, what I would say is that any adult can mutilate their own body if they want to, but society is not in any way obliged to assist in this. In fact, I would say that a better society would have nothing to do with facilitating such things. I would stress that society should not in any way discriminate against someone who self-mutilates, so jobs, housing, respect, etc. for such people must be the same as it is for anyone else. However, there is no reason society should ever help make this happen for adults. And preventing it from being done, if at all possible, by the young and vulnerable is appropriate and warrarnted.
I confess that I skipped over some of this article because it was just too damned infuriating to read it all. The number of mental gymnastics, distortions, illogical statements, etc. in the parts I did read is astounding. The overall idea seems to be that everyone, including children, must have the right to manipulate their body through whatever technology is available for that purpose, simply because, as I suspected, they want it! If it doesn't work out, so be it. If they regret it, who cares.
Young people must have the "freedom" - which really means the opportunity, provided by society at no cost - to manipulate their bodies to appear as the opposite sex simply because they want to do it. They must have this same "freedom" to avoid the consequences of nature - avoiding puberty - again, because they want it.
By this argument, I cannot see how Chu would not also argue that children should be free to take any drugs that exist if they are curious or think those drugs might be beneficial to them. They must be free to eat whatever they want when they want it. They must be free to live anywhere, to go bungy-jumping, to not go to school, to not go to sleep except when they feel like it, to have sex if they want to. Any parent that prevents any of this is being abusive and making inappropriate moral or "normative" judgments.
As long as the young person wants these body modifications, how can we not provide them (or the food they want, the drugs they want, the freedom to have sex, to avoid school, etc.)? In short, Chu seems to warn that society must give young people whatever they want when they want it, or we are being judgmental and unkind. What an insane article, written by a Pulitzer Prize winner. Wow, I am thinking those Prizes are given out way too easily at this point.
Hippiesq: "... way too easily at this point." 🙂 A depressing sign of the times.
But quite right on the absolutely "astounding" "number of mental gymnastics, distortions, illogical statements, etc.." I kind of bailed myself after seeing his periodic reliance on the "idea" of changing sex.
Hippiesq: "They must be free to eat whatever they want when they want it."
Exactly. Think we may have talked about this cartoon on "Progressive Parenting":
https://archive.ph/e5EYu
You may not have had time yet to read much of Harrington's post, but, on the basis of an earlier quick skim, she goes into some detail on various norms, and on the efforts of Chu and his ilk to try destroying them. Largely the theme of Stock's post on abolishing gender. Not all norms deserve promotion or being slavishly adhered to, but they often have some social utility, not least in inculcating some social responsibility.
Reminds me of a favourite quote from Eleanor Roosevelt:
“...our children must learn...to face full responsibility for their actions, to make their own choices and cope with the results...the whole democratic system...depends upon it. For our system is founded on self-government, which is untenable if the individuals who make up the system are unable to govern themselves.”
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/824275-our-children-must-learn-to-face-full-responsibility-for-their-actions
Chu and Company want to give free rein to kids, and for rather self-serving reasons, generally to comport with his dogma and delusions.
Great cartoon!
And yes, Chue does want to give "free rein to kids, and for rather self-serving reasons, generally to comport with his dogma and delusions."
Let's hope the airing of Andrew Long Chu's deranged ideas cause the Overton Window to move in reverse for once in the direction of sanity and reasonableness.
Apart from simply owning the TERFs, could New York magazine have had any legitimate motive for publishing Andrew's piece of trash?
Great as always, and “bigoted miserliness” is a wonderful phrase!
Is Chu a based undercover agent out to discredit the trans lobby? Is there anything outrageous or absurd enough to compel them to reconsider their position?
I briefly considered writing an article proposing selling hormones in vending machines on college campuses. However I was stopped by the fear that someone somewhere may take it seriously and decide it's a good idea.
It should be Andrew Long Chu, not Andrea. Andrew is a man. He stole a woman's name. Why allow him to do that without protest?
I dunno - I think people should be allowed to assume whatever name they wish.
Chu follows Masha Gessen in dismissing regret over missing body parts as just another part of life's vicissitudes. The oddest thing about the article is its timing. As Freddie DeBoer notes this isn't exactly the cultural moment for this essay. A corner may not have been turned but I don't think we're at the Chu stage of performative rhetorical exercises either.
Is Masha Gessen the lesbian Russian journalist who wrote about Putin? Is she a Trans Activist?
I'm not sure I'd call her an activist. There's a New Yorker interview with her in which she addresses regret with a shrug. Probably easily to google.
Yes, Masha is a disappointment. I had enjoyed her analysis of Russian politics. But now, I can't take "theys" seriously. I am assuming she is on T--her appearance has changed.
(I will look up her New Yorker piece.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/01/opinion/politics/life-without-regret.html
The above is an absurd piece in NYT by Lydia Polgreen. Lydia attended the Genspect conference this past November.
Oh lord. I just read the first part of that article, and the insistence on merging the categories of sex and gender make it incomprehensible. We are all born with a gender--no. We are born with sexed bodies. What our societies make of them, what expectations and limitations are put on them, is what constitutes gender. I'm old enough to have not run into the concept of a "gender identity" until I was a fully grown adult; I assumed it only applied to trans people, for whom it is the most important thing in their lives. It never occurred to me to think in terms of gender identity for myself, and to this day I have nothing in my mind or soul which corresponds to it. I have a sex--female--but I have no gender identity. I have a mind; that's it.
She's something else too
Oh well, I’ll brag my 🍿 to watch Chu’s much needed fall.
I saw that this article had been linked at Metafilter, and sighed, because in Metafilter's terms I am a heretic on this particular issue and so I usually keep my mouth shut, not wanting to get thrown off the site. [Link is here: https://www.metafilter.com/202868/Political-demands-at-the-level-of-biology-itself] But during the discussion which followed, there was a demonstration, in miniature, of the -- I can't think of a better word-- histrionics which follow so often whenever transwomen assert themselves in public, that I wanted to... point at it, somehow.
The self-aggrandizement, the self-flattery, the strutting around over how their genitals are better than natural ones, that they are "shapeshifters and magicians and superheroes", who have "power that cis people never will. Power that frightens you. Challenges you. We have the ability to fundamentally change who we are." It makes me gag. And reassures me, again, that whoever the new transwomen are, they sure as hell haven't stopped acting like men. (I have changed who I am a number of times during the years of my life, and I would venture to say it's a human quality that is available to anyone, not just at the end of a pill bottle.) The abrupt and offended deleting of their profiles in protest of the ignorance of "cis people", the flouncing away. Over the last few years I've seen this happen over and over again on Mefi, while the mods bend over backwards, thanklessly, to placate them.
Nowhere in this discussion is it possible to raise the urgent questions that I want to. Puberty blockers are not benign. We know this. Disrupting a child's endocrine system so drastically cannot be harmless, and indeed it is not: medical services, such as the NHS, have chosen to stop prescribing them given the lack of any evidence that they are helpful. Adult transwomen often seem to be fantasizing backwards about how great their lives would be now if they hadn't had to go through male puberty; but let's look at the most famous case of this protocol, shall we? And here we run smack into Jazz Jennings, who, as a result of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones is UNABLE TO ORGASM. She has NO sexual feelings. She likely never will, and I consider that such a horrific violation of her human rights that I really don't have words for it. I am sure she had no idea what she was consenting to when she started taking those drugs; but as she grows older, and her peers and friends reach adulthood, and she begins to realize what has been stolen from her (imagine the sexless life which those who push puberty blockers somehow think acceptable) she may have a very rough road ahead. It breaks my heart, you know.