I posted a version of this blog post back in the summer. This week—with Lia Thomas demolishing women’s swimming records and the New York Times deferring to the preferred pronouns of a male serial killer of women—is as good a time as any to resurrect and recirculate it. Talk to your friends. You might be surprised who’s waiting for an opening to speak freely about the conflicts trans ideology raises.
These are the same things I've been told all my life. My Dad said if I didn't do them, I would never get a husband. "Everywhere progressives turn, they hear what's expected of a good trans ally [woman]: listen [defer] to trans people [men], educate yourself [self-indoctrinate], amplify trans [men's] voices [be quiet], be kind [don’t be honest], and remember: your intent doesn't matter."
We need to be asking the most basic of questions. They distract us by getting us to fight about male puberty, hormone levels etc
“Why are Women’s sports separated from Men’s sports”
That’s it. That’s the question. Make them answer it and don’t let them pirouette off into kindness, sportsmanship, gender soul, etc
But how can we ask these sorts of questions when doing so will get us "canceled"? I actually counted and found that 1/3 of my friends who have kids in the right age have a "trans" child. They all accept their stated gender unquestioningly and rubber stamp any interventions available. If I questioned any of these things I would be friendless pretty quickly.
Excellent. But I’ve found that most people just don’t seem to care. They acknowledge problems but ultimately they don’t think the problems are that widespread or numerous. They wave them away or shrug their shoulders in that “Well, watcha gonna do?” way. For many people, this isn’t on their radar and they can’t be bothered to think about it.
The pictoral instructions of how to be a trans ally, read as if they were advice on how to help someone who has a severe physical and mental disability.
Rarely do we have power dynamics spelled out for us so clearly but I thought this might be edifying for some:
"As speech is such a significant part of what makes us human and separates us from animals, having this function restricted or removed can be frustrating and dehumanizing. For this reason, speech restriction may be used to punish, humiliate, or reinforce power roles within a BDSM relationship."
In that last sentence, I would put a period after power roles as this takes place in any hierarchical system (relationship, group, society).
Point is -- trust your instincts. If something feels off, it probably is.
I think that the illogic of transgender ideology becomes apparent when discussing sports records. We all remember the so-called woman who won all that money on Jeopardy, and that people were saying that she set a new record "on behalf of women", which of course she didn't. What will they say when a trans woman runs a four-minute mile (something which a natural woman has not done yet). Will the NY Times and the Washington Post blithely proclaim that a "woman" has "finally" achieved that important milestone? If and when they do, I will send straight-jackets to their editors.
My brother posted this on his Facebook timeline. Here was the comment I entered upon reading it:
"Interesting and very perceptive. If enough progressives were like Ms Green, and enough on the 'other side' were willing to engage in rational discussion also, many or most minds likely would not be changed, but that would be OK. The value would be in calming the roiling waters and having all concerned see each other as more or less decent human beings who just disagree. The degree of combat going on over this (especially) and other hot-button public issues continues to grow more ferocious, making reasoned discourse less and less possible."
I would define myself as a constitutionalist conservative, which may be a red flag to some or many on the left---but it need not be, any more than "progressive" need be a knee-jerk red flag to those to the right of center.
We may never agree on many policy issues and their underlying principles (we all would fervently hope, I imagine, that there are indeed such principles), but why, why, why must this all be treated as if it was deadly combat? This is an old example but a good one, I think. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil were prodigious political foes, but they could talk to one another about issues and actually liked each other. One weeps to recall this and then consider the cesspit-like mess we so often have for discourse in this country.
yes, you can talk about this. Is just that you hoped to get a specific answer and then got angry when it didn't validate your fearmongering about trans people. All of these questions and more are talked about openly in trans circles and with allies. You not liking the answer is another issue that you have to solve for yourself