I really wish the Trump administration, which is busy issuing gender-related executive orders and messaging, were taking into account the reality that we're dealing with a radicalized population that includes a lot of very vulnerable, psychologically unwell young people who've been told for years to expect a
Eliza, given that victimhood is the moral currency of a certain slice of the progressive left, why wouldn't hysteria reign? Who has any incentive to say, "oh, this is no big deal, my doc is pretty resourceful, we'll be fine?" That would be like Trump voters saying, "oh, the FBI isn't so bad, they only look into people who've probably done something bad." When victimhood is a competive sport (the so-called "oppression Olympics") there is every incentive to present as worse-off than your neighbor. If people admit they aren't really oppressed, then they become just another middle-class white person with nothing special about them, and who wants that?
Agreed. Strong words are needed to shock liberals back into reality. Transgenderism got this far because good people wouldn't stand up against it. I'm very enthusiastic about the three Trump EOs that stop transgender ideology. Now it's up to us to move these initiatives forward. Part of that work will be helping young transitioners realize they made a mistake. That means getting materials into our schools to help gender nonconforming youth live their true lives, accepting themselves exactly as they are so they can mature to be happy, healthy adults living in all their gender nonconforming glory. But that won't happen in blue states, which are gearing up to fight Trump and work against those of us who have rejected the Democratic Party's destruction of women's rights.
We're working with Republicans to “transition” back to sanity. We need to expand the sex and gender EO with a federal law that will support youth prevented from transitioning by Trump's EO “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.” But first, we need to use Trump's anti-DEI EO to eliminate the teaching of white guilt to children and young adults. A big part of why so many transgender youth are white is because schools and colleges have taught youth that if they are not oppressed, they are the oppressor. They can't opt out of their race, which white kids have been taught is the bad category, but they can opt into the lgbTQIAAA2S+ category. When they do, they are celebrated on social media and by our teachers, especially in blue states. So stopping the teaching of anti-white racism is where we start. Concurrently, we need to reinstate the reality of sex and teach the destructive horror of transgender ideology, from irreversible sterilization and mutilation to Democrats putting male convicted rapists in female prisons. Where they raped women, of course.
Democrats will try to obscure the damage they've caused so they can play on voters sympathies again in 2026 and 2028. We need to never let them do that again. Eliza is right. We need to step up now and help these kids. And all future youth who are susceptible to inane ideologies that destroy common sense about sex and race.
We wrote a federal bill that we offered to Democrats before giving up and working with Republicans instead. Some of our words are in the Trump EOs. We are developing materials for schools. If you are a writer or web developer who agrees with us, we could use some help. Contact me via Substack messaging.
Omg, the schools. Start untangling the threads of who has power to enact controversial and activist policies as a way to queer schools, aka “fuck around and find out.” And there will be legal counsel appendages playing God, you can be sure.
I couldn't agree with you more Eliza. I am able to 'spy' on my son's blsky page and it's very clear that this has solidified the resolve of these groups. Extreme statements like 'death before detransition' abound. Fear and rage are clear. It is very unfortunate and very scary.
100% agree. ‘Death before transition’ merch has been widely available on Etsy —Etsy!— for years, long before there was a perceived ‘storm coming.’ In a media climate where even healthy normies are at peak cortisol all day long, this is a reckless way to communicate sensible policy changes.
I hear what you are saying. Yes, it would be great if someone would help these poor people deal with the reality that all their fears are idiotic. Every one of the beliefs you quoted trans people as having in this article are insane, far from grounded in any reality. (As was the entire premise of their transness and their transition.) The longer they believe such stupid ideas, the longer they will be afflicted. I don't want that for them.
However, if Trump or his administration tried to explain as you proposed, do you really think it would change these poor people's delusions and internal suffering? I don't. I think these people need help finding some purchase in reality. One good step is emphatically calling BS on the claim that "transwomen are women" and similar lies the trans community tells themselves and have demanded everyone else bow to. That's what Trump is doing. I don't think it's realistic to expect any president to have time for the subtlety you are asking for. Well, maybe Trudeau, but then again, no country including Canada wants Trudeau in charge.
I think the empathy and care you are asking for is indeed needed. The people who said the things you quoted have truly lost their marbles, and they need help. I just don't think the President of the United States is the person we should be expecting that help from.
I don't agree. The language is irrelevant to the radicalized. They would be making those posts no matter how the EO was worded.
It's the 49% who voted for Kamala who need to be (and can be) shown that gender ideology is wrong and should be opposed. The strong language has a chance to move them. Weak language does not.
Exactly. There is unfortunately nothing to be gained by pussyfooting around and playing the language game that got us into this mess in the first place. I just saw one well meaning soul on Australian television who seemed to recognise all the problems with gender ideology offering up the suggestion that the way to deal with this in a “nice” way is to put the 13 year olds on puberty blockers until they were able to “figure it out”. Again exactly how we got here with the puberty blockers opening the flood gates and putting the vast majority on a fast track to irreversible damage.
This is definitely the strongest case for Trump’s language in the EOs, and I’m sympathetic to it: that nothing but strong language will wake people up because the “normies” (so to speak) don’t understand how bad this is. However, I think we’re fortunately (and unfortunately, in a different way) past that phase. In around 2018, we were definitely in that phase with both gender and race. 2020 and the aftermath of George Floyd set a lot of people’s alarm bells off with regard to the racial side of intersectionality, but the gender stuff came into the public eye a bit later. It’s been building for a few years now, and last year was definitely a tipping point, with the Cass Review and WPATH Files, plus all the extremely obvious TIMs in women’s sports.
Because of this, I think the conservative-leaning normies were activated once they heard about the issue at all, which at this point most everybody has, and the liberal-leaning normies have gradually been activated once they saw that the “science” behind trans is a paper tiger and that indulging this leads to real-world harms, especially to women and girls. Things like the Cass Review were huge here because it’s a UK government-sponsored review of the medical literature that is impossible to dismiss as the work of cranks. So much of the reason that normies went along with this is that all the institutions were on board. Now, there’s official questioning of the narrative with damning evidence to go with it.
This is the unfortunate part: any holdouts now are not the type of people who will be shocked by strong language into understanding what’s going on. They’re either in the cult themselves, or have accepted enough of the cult logic that they will have a negative knee-jerk reaction to Trump’s language, shutting down any further thought on the topic.
I’m definitely with you on not playing language games. But in my mind, there’s a difference between the language that got us here (“trans women/men,” “gender affirming care,” “authentic self,” etc.), and the language that could be used to calm the situation down while still being truthful. For instance, instead of saying gender surgeries are “mutilation,” they could have said they “cause irreparable harm to the body.” “Mutilation” is a true description, but it’s not the only possible one, and it’s one that is needlessly inflammatory.
One could have hoped that the EO might have included some evidence as to studies that counter the ideology rather than just saying that it was 'junk science'. There was an opportunity to educate that 49% many of whom don't know that the left has their facts wrong.
Exactly. It will not even matter what comes out of the recent DOGE audits. These people have made their lives into this ideology and progressive community. I know someone just this morning (her mental health declined during the first Trump admin thinking that somehow he was going to be basically enslave women or some other wacky thought - it became even worse during the pandemic) her posts on FB range from F Bombs to wanting to have someone try again with Trump, now its Zuckerberg. She shared a picture that was clearly an AI generated image of a firefighter in a huge blaze behind him carrying two black bears with the note that 'these men and women are what we should all aspire to be, they are heroes and they deserved to be treated as such.' A french presse fact checking (certified fact checking network apparently) said that this video and pictures are not real and generated by AI - she went incensed about how Zuckerberg is trying to suppress her and that fire fighters are not heros - like losing it. She is unable to see anything objectively - she believes that people are going to be round up and exterminated. Its bizarre - this is a 50 year old woman. There is nothing that can be done to reach her.
Thank you for your heartfelt reply to my comment, Stacy. We (there are two of us) have lost friends over exactly this sort of thing. We even have a Jewish friend of the leftist-socialist "Not in our name" persuasion who not just on line but in person thinks the real enemies of Jews like her and her husband are not Arab Muslims on college campuses and city centres all over the world calling for their extermination but shadowy far-right elements in the United States who are going to go after the Muslims next, once Trump allows them to take power. I understand that not all Jews support either Zionism or all the policies of the secular Israeli state but not to see the current threat seems like willful blindness, not just Trump-derangement syndrome.
I could be glib and wish that you and your friend could reconcile but I think that probably neither of you will be happier from the effort. Some people declare their characters by what they profess to believe. You don't always have to wait for deeds.
As a trans widow, who has been silenced by Harris/Biden supporters and local Leftists in my Hudson Valley town, I will tell you, they believe in trans, they do not care about collateral damage and they don't want to hear it. I've been screamed at. I collect the only data in the world on trans widows. With 65 responses to my survey, I can tell you, a significant healthy 1/3 of trans identifying men are sexual abusers.
The vast majority of Harris voters are simply ignorant of the facts about trans (because the media constantly lies about them). Getting them good information is important. Trump's strongly worded EOs help do that.
I agree. A lot of those types of posts happened BEFORE the EOs. The activists have been fanning the flames all during the election and Trump winning was proof enough for them regardless of EOs. Genocide / erasure has been the battle cry for years. Even the transsexuals who believe one cannot actually change sex, men should not be in women's spaces, children need to be left alone and they celebrate the EOs are being ignored by the ones deeply entrenched.
You are right. Ideally, this can be explained in a most compassionate manner. I don't know if the indoctrinated will be able to hear the words clearly or see the compassion, but we still have to try. For example, when it comes to youth gender medicine and social transition, we might say:
The greatest strength of the United States is its acceptance of all types of people and the beautiful array of individuals such acceptance cultivates, in a melting pot that is stronger for its diversity. This is especially true when it come to our youth. We want our effeminate males, our masculine females, our unconventional, creative, unique and sensitive youth to feel accepted for who they are. We do not want to stamp out such beautiful differences by chemically and surgically assaulting those who feel out of place. We want all of our youth to remain healthy. We do not want to promote body hatred. We want all our youth to accept themselves. For that reason, we will not promote an agenda that encourages youth who feel out of place in their bodies to deny their biology and chemically and surgically alter their appearance in ways that make them less healthy.
That's just an example. The point is to speak in ways that cannot be interpreted as hateful without actively distorting the plain meaning of words.
This is an excellent, well-reasoned, compassionate comment, Hippiesq. Unfortunately, I don't think it'll make a dent with peope who are gung-ho on the trans train.
I've also tried explaining, logically and compassionately, why we should accept people in all their wild and wonderful wackiness, however they present themselves, without mutilating their bodies or indulging their delusions. I've brought up the example of "Two Spirit" people, who are accepted as normal and no-big-deal in many indigenous cultures. I think that's a healthy way for societies to function.
But every time, I've been shouted down by my supposedly liberal compatriots and called a TERF, bigot, transphobe, etc. It's their default position.
I don't know when this fever will break -- probably only when many thousands of medical malpractice lawsuits are brought against those who have aided and abetted this grotesquerie. I know that some of those lawsuits have already started, but I'm afraid it's going to take an avalanche before we see any progress.
(BTW, I hate, loathe, and despise Trump and everything he represents, but even I know a stopped clock is right twice a day. The problem is, as someone here already said, people on the purported left are automatically going to oppose everything he does.)
I agree with all of that, and I have had the same exact experience where people assume anything other than enthusiasm for lying to children, chemically and surgically altering their bodies is "hateful." And yes, because Trump (who I also don't care for at all) happens to agree with what we are saying, these people believe that, ispo facto, means we must be wrong. It's incredibly frustrating and there may be no words with which to break the spell.
To me, this proposed position statement makes a lot of sense and I can feel the kindness in it. However too many of the TRAs are aggressively hostile, even casually murderous. They seem to always be in this frame of mind, because they leap to that sort of dialogue at no provocation at all.
The problemm is not entirely in confusion and fear of not being accepted. It's also in porn addiction.
I suggest that an alternate path, which could at least start to move the 49% mentioned elsewhere, is to use approximately that same tone and reasonable fact-based argument, to raise the topic of kids being oversexualized through internet free play and contact with netizens who carry the mind virus.
Something like, "15 and 20 years ago, we were intensely worried about kids having access to adult content and topics online, or showing up in chat rooms and being seduced into having sexualizing conversations with people who mean them no good. That discussion seems to have gone away entirely. It's not good for kids to be exposed to this stuff and we need to keep the concept of adulthood and childhood distinct. etc. etc."
I'm totally failing at putting this into your beautiful language.
I think that this is potentially a wedge topic. If people can be induced to return to thinking of this sort of online activity as harmful to kids, then they might start thinking about exactly what the activity does to kids (confuses them, ruins their boundaries, objectifies them, gives them ideas about sex and relationships that are coming from the more broken among society [pedos and the -adjacent are broken], gives them ideas about sex and relationships being something that can be conducted online or in an online manner even offline, etc.)
I think compassion might have some chance with this audience. And they will need it, if they have been operating with this concern for kids' well-being shut off.
Beautifully stated, and I totally agree. What you write here is what the Democrats should have done and, if they had the slightest bit of courage, would do now. Alas.
I really don't understand where that concern went. It was so prevalent and then all of a sudden... I think it may have been internet-new media companies advocating for no controls, but I am so puzzled that somehow adults just fell silent about it.
I hear you and have tremendous compassion for those indoctrinated. As I've stated before on here, I've lost both my children to this madness. Additionally, 'compassion' has been weaponized against well-meaning people, especially parents. I have come to believe that no matter how compassionate the administration would be, the activists will twist every single thing they say. They are beyond reasonable and not interested in solutions. It's possible that I am completely cynical at this point.
Completely disagree. Child mutilation is an old bandage festering with infection. Best to rip it off as quickly as possible as the Trump EO did. Scare the shit out of the doctors and hospitals participating in this ongoing atrocity.
I don't think that too many people are scared by a Trump E.O. Everyone knows he is term-limited, and he'll be gone soon -- indeed, he'll probably die in office. Once he's gone, the Dems will be back wringing their hands about 3-year-olds living in the wrong bodies. If Trump had two IQ points to rub together (which he doesn't), he'd be explaining to the nation what it is that makes transgender ideology so bizarre and wrong. But he isn't smart enough to make the arguments. Once Trump is gone, Dems will be back in power and proposing that girls have their mastectomies at age 8 instead of 13.
This interlude with Trump won't do anything to stop the bad ideas. What the country needs is an anti-transgender DEMOCRAT.
Perry: Four years is a pretty long time. I see reports of hospitals already dropping “gender affirming care” for children. This will have major impact.
I know Eliza doesn't like people arguing politics in her comments, and I don't like doing it in general, so I won't answer replies. I agree with her concerns, and I'd say I share her disappointment, but I never expected a second Trump administration to approach this or any other issue responsibly with nuance, care and compassion. They were elected to smash things, and lots of people think those things needed smashing and are happy among the debris; there are no adults in the room to sweep it up. Anyway, please add me on here if you are one of the apparently few people in the country who would call herself a TERF and also believes that orange man is, in fact, bad. Maybe I'll start a newsletter for all dozen of us.
True dat, orange man bad. I'm so mad at Democrats who have made things so bad that the worst candidate in our history just beat our Party. I don't want trans kids hurt. The only thing I want smashed is the irrational belief that Democrats are on our side when they show us over and over they are not.
So let's do what strong women and good men have always done: Break out the brooms and start saving the kids. Trump has given us a great opportunity by setting the stage to take down gender ideology. Join in folks.
Eliza, thank you so much for being a voice of reason and compassion in this. I am so disheartened seeing people on "our side" celebrating and laughing at the distress of the young people panicking about Trump's EOs. Of course I agree with the basic content if not the execution and language of the EOs. And yes, there's going to be strong emotional and behavioral reactions from a population of young people already prone to strong emotional reactions and dysregulation (that's how many of them were vulnerable to this idea in the first place) made worse by phobia indoctrination that we won't be able to fully avoid. But we need to treat these young people with compassion. People who are in the throes of high fear and high emotion and who think they are in danger - whether that perception is accurate or not - do not make good decisions. They are at high risk of hurting (either literally or metaphorically) themselves or even others. They are at high risk of making dangerous, harmful, or unhelpful impulsive decisions. If we genuinely care about these vulnerable kids and young adults - if we are really serious and what we are saying that we are doing this because we are trying to protect them - we have to think about this angle and take it seriously and respond with care and compassion, even when they are driving us crazy with hyperbolic or hysterical language and beliefs. This is not about winning a culture war. It's about protecting vulnerable people and sometimes that requires us doing things that make us feel uncomfortable or vulnerable or to meet them closer to where they are in a way that requires us to step more out of our comfort zones than we are asking them to step out of theirs. Because we are supposedly the adults who can see around the corners that they can't see around yet and who can see the bigger picture and the manipulation that they are trapped in. We aren't winning or stopping anything if we are creating the conditions for people panic and rush into more medicalization or to dig in deeper to this ideology, whether as "allies" or as trans identified young people.
Yes. My son Is caught up in this and I can’t reach him. He actually believes he is in danger and who Is supposed to be the voice of reason for him? I don’t trust he has the help he needs to use the better parts of his medicalized brain. The despair is one of an armless mother watching their child rushing past in a raging river. I do think this will cause many to dig deeper. I also know it is different for parents who have lost their beloved children to the ideology.
This fear mongering has unfortunately been adopted into their mantras for many decades. My ex-husband talked like that 30 years ago. Its part of the illness.
I am far more concerned about my Venezuelan neighbors, who have been here for five or six years and are now in danger of being deported. They really have something to lose. Half of my American neighbors irritate the hell out of me because of their entitled behavior, but the Venezuelan neighbors are totally delightful.
Gosh, maybe your anecdotal experience with illegal aliens from Venezuela should inform our federal immigration policies. That didn't work so well for Laken Riley. She was raped and murdered by José Antonio Ibarra, a Venezuelan man who entered the United States illegally but was released by the US Border Patrol under Democratic “catch and release” rules. Ibarra had been previously arrested by federal and state officials in multiple jurisdictions from New York to Georgia. He was still not deported for being in our country illegally.
Then there's the 12 year old girl Jocelyn Nungaray who was raped and murdered in Texas last summer. The US Border Patrol apprehended Johan José Martínez-Rangel near El Paso on March 14, 2024, but he was also released, free to live in our country. Border Patrol also arrested Franklin José Peña Ramos on May 28, 2024. Yep, he was also released into our country. Both those men have been arrested for the rape and murder of Jocelyn. If convicted, US taxpayers have to pay the enormous cost of keeping those men in prison. That's an add on to the devastation they caused to the family who lost their daughter, a crime which could have been avoided by simply deporting illegal aliens.
I could go on; there are hundreds more incidents that would have been avoided if only Democrats had sensible immigration policies. By the way, nothing I've said above should be construed to imply that I think:
Venezuelans are bad or dangerous people
Illegal aliens are bad or dangerous people
People of any particular race or skin color are bad or dangerous people
What I believe, along with millions of other Democrats who refused to vote for Democrats last November, is that we can be kind to people in other countries without having stupid policies that hurt us. I care about good people who are suffering in Laos and many other nations. They would also make good neighbors. But we can't have immigration policies that say, "If you can get to northern Mexico and walk across our border, we'll accommodate you, even if you don't apply for citizenship.”
Sadly, it required removing elected Democrats from power to get our government to follow it's own laws and policies that allow us to check if an illegal alien is a criminal before releasing him to rape and murder innocent Americans.
First, my neighbors are not illegals. They are going through the legal process, but even so, Trump wants to throw them out. The son speaks about five languages and is so good at languages that he could work for the United Nations. In school in Venezuela he was studying to become a dentist. Both mother and son are FINE people (finer than you are with all your ugly prejudice).
Here is a fact for you: Immigrants who go through the legal process commit fewer crimes than Americans do. I wouldn't be surprised if it is also true that ILLEGAL immigrants commit fewer crimes than Americans do.
I was not defending illegal immigration. Let's not forget that the U.S. is a country of immigrants, and that for the first 100 years or so everybody who arrived here was let into the country. The only people who have a true RIGHT to be here are American Indians.
Citation needed. Thanks for all the anecdotal info on your great neighbors; sounds like they'll be great Americans. But please show me in Trump's executive order where it says he wants to kick them out of our country. Also, do you really need me to give you hundreds of names of people harmed by illegal aliens. You seem smart. I'm sure you can look up crime data yourself. Each incident would not have occurred if Democrats didn't have “catch and release” immigration policies. If it was you who was harmed, maybe you'd understand why it's reasonable to have the government prevent those particular crimes.
You're not very nice, you know that? Trump's contempt for immigrants extends to legal as well as illegal immigrants. I lived in NYC while Trump grew his corrupt business empire (six bankruptcies!), so I know all about him. In fact, it was only a couple weeks ago that I read an article (in the Washington Post, I think) that in Trump's first term, he did more to slow down legal immigration than illegal immigration. The article said that, so far in his second term, he is pursuing similar policies. Trump is just a racial bigot.
From the Wikipedia article on Catch and Release: "The migrants whom U.S. immigration enforcement agencies have allowed to remain in the community pending immigrant hearings have been those deemed low risk, such as children, families, and those seeking asylum." I couldn't imagine that these fine neighbors of mine, people who are better than I am and certainly better than you are, should have had to sit in detention for five years (a prison term!) while their case was adjudicated.
I feel sorry for people like you who are so frightened for your own security that you want to put people in jail who have not committed a crime beyond trying to find a better place to live.
Well that's a bizarre interpretation of what I said. You responded by attacking my both character and my intellect. If it was your granddaughter who was raped and murdered by illegal aliens, you might not be so judgmental of my anger toward the people who are hellbent on pretending Wikipedia's description of the problem is accurate: “The migrants … have been those deemed low risk, such as children, families, and those seeking asylum." Tell that to Laken Riley's family.
To be clear:
1. I don't like Trump.
2. I didn't vote for Trump
3. I won't vote for Democrats who destroy women's rights by allowing males who perform a MALE version of womanhood into female sports, female showers and other spaces, and especially female prisons where Democrats are currently facilitating rape of imprisoned women by male convicted rapists who claim to be women. Are they removing males from female spaces and sports now that the Trump Admin has asserted that sex is real? Nope. They're digging in their heels, requiring us to sue them.
4. I'm not afraid for my own security. I'm concerned about the young people who are killed thanks to irrational Democratic policies and Wiki pages that pretend we're dealing only with sweet little big eyed children. How naive! I don't want to put people in jail. I want to remove illegal aliens from our country until they have gone through a very reasonable immigration process. That includes removing murderers like José Antonio Ibarra who should have been deported after his first arrest in NY. Now we're stuck paying for that POS rapist for the rest of his life in a US prison. No, you're wrong. I DON'T want men like him in a US jail. I want policies that remove them before they rape and murder.
You don't need to convince me with your opinion of Trump. Or Wikipedia's assurances. I want better policies, and we can't get them by voting for the people who destroyed women's rights and our border security. Also, I wish you long life and I hope vote you join us in 2026 and 2028 while we fire other bad Democrats. But this time, we'll do it by hiring BETTER Democrats. Primary them!
You started arguing with me after I made some perfectly sensible comments, and now you are arguing just for the sake of it. My tolerance for bickering has reached its limit. Good night.
Nice! Oh yes, attack a woman who disagrees with you by beating her with the gender conformer stick. How awful, a woman who isn't nice!
A woman who is concerned about the safety of women (and I agree her racial concerns may be exaggerated) over those of the ambitious, downtrodden neighbours who flee to America, may have a point, or may not, but you are really betraying your misogynist politics.
When men start being nice and stop raping women, no matter what colour they are, then we'll talk about women being nice too.
While it would be nice if cooler heads were the ones running things, I think that the trans community (which is very, very intertwined with the Very Online Progressive community) has been such a state of fear about "trans genocides" etc. for years now that even extremely mild criticism of trans ideology is perceived as ACTUAL VIOLENCE no matter who says it. I'm not sure they would listen to anyone.
I derive a certain malicious delight in their despair, but I realize that getting them all worked up and hugely sympathetic in the eyes of trans allies is going to make it harder to suppress gender ideology in the end.
Thank you Eliza for a well reasoned article. What people fail to understand is using inflammatory or incendiary language is not going to help someone out of a cult. And isn’t that what we are trying to do? Prevent kids from being indoctrinated AND help those already in the cult? It seems that many think these kids are losers, but the majority of the kids who fell into this are very bright and capable kids who could thrive and contribute to society once out of the cult. Mine is one. His development was sidetracked by this.
The Executive Orders and subsequent laws and policies are not directed at children. They are designed to scare the crap out of teachers and doctors who have been fooling kids. The strong, descriptive words are designed to stop the transitioning profiteers cold.
We are entering what was always going to be the most dangerous phase of this, managing the comedown. People who have been scammed out of body parts, sexuality, fertility, grandchildren, years of their lives lost to delusions, all the rest of it, are not just quietly going to take up hobbies and settle down. And that's just the good faith actors. Jonestown here we come.
When dealing with someone radicalized or deep into a delusion, there’s an argument to be made that plain language is best to reestablish reality. Don’t equivocate, don’t haggle, don’t coddle, and don’t mask anything in vague or overcomplicated language. Because doing any of can leave room for manipulation in an effort to keep the radicalization or delusion alive. A simple repetitive reestablishing of biological reality, with simple and clear boundaries stated and maintained.
We only validated patients with mental distress in extreme circumstances, but we had to have clear parameters for this because doing so could undo months or years of therapy. Or could destroy rapport completely and another team would need to be found, which can be impossible. We need to stay focused on blunt clarity, with as little room to mentally wiggle out of realty. Be honest without cruelty, knowing they WILL see reality as cruel.
What we should focus on is building support systems for parents, teachers and caregivers to provide reality focused interactions with anyone deep into trans ideology. And ensure those ready to return to reality are given an off ramp so there’s less fear of retaliation.
I disagree with Eliza. Strong words are needed to shock tolerant liberals back into reality. Transgender ideology got this far because good people wouldn't stand up against it. I'm working with a group that wants to move these initiatives forward. That means getting materials into our schools to help gender nonconforming youth live their true lives, accepting themselves exactly as they are so they can mature to be happy, healthy adults living in all their gender nonconforming glory. We can try to help young transitioners realize they made a mistake, but we'll be blocked in blue states that have geared up to fight Trump. those of us who have rejected the Democratic Party's destruction of women's rights will be blocked by Dem state governments and schools that will prevent student access to our materials.
So we'll have to work with Republicans (and the few elected Dems who join us) to “transition” back to sanity. We wrote a federal bill that we offered to Democrats before giving up and working with Republicans instead. Some of our words are in the Trump EOs. We are developing materials for schools. If you are a writer or web developer who agrees with us, we could use some help. Contact me via Substack messaging if you want to join us.
"Strong words are needed to shock tolerant liberals back into reality."
All the evidence I've ever seen is that, unless they come from an already trusted source, "strong words" don't shock people into reality; they make people retrench and double down, exactly what we don't want. I get it from an emotional standpoint, but I don't see any reason to believe it's actually effective in actually changing minds, which I think is Eliza's point.
I also disagree in the same way. The reactions have been reactionary for decades. And the trans allies are the ones who are violent! As are the married men who suddenly take this on.
I am unusual (perhaps even unique) in being a pro-trans person—moderate pro-trans, one who agrees with a lot of Gender Critical critiques and who is strongly against the shutting down of debate, but still pro-trans—who reads this newsletter. So here's a perspective different from other commentators. Please actually consider it before dismissing it, and please don't tell me why I am wrong *merely* to be pro-trans—that's a debate I'm happy to have elsewhere, but I want to focus on the issue of this post, here and now. And forgive the length here: this is an issue about which I try to speak carefully and with nuance, and then ends up long.
Here's my view: I think that perhaps the pro-trans side is not the only side with something to learn here.
Having read Eliza Mondegreen for a long time, I am sure that were she in power she would handle these issues with compassion, and that she has some very valid concerns, even if I don't agree with all of her proposed solutions. And I think that's true of a lot of the gender critical people I read on twitter and substack and elsewhere.
But there *are* people on the gender critical side (or at least the anti-trans side) who are not coming at this issue out of valid concerns (whether for women's safety and privacy, for the well-being of minors who believe themselves (rightly or wrongly) to be trans, etc). These are people who are coming out of this out of hate, disgust and bigotry. Again, I am *not* saying that these are the only reasons to oppose trans activism—I know that they aren't. But I don't think it's right to deny that *some* people oppose trans rights out of those concerns. Mondegreen says that "for Trump, the appeal is the culture war": but the *reason* that is an appeal for him is because it's popular, and the reason it's popular is because, in *addition* to reasonable concerns, there is also a lot of actual malice.
For me—and this is personal, not prescriptive—the dividing line is whether the person in question is *also* anti-gay. Someone like Matt Walsh, who is not only anti-trans but is also anti-gay (and anti a lot of women's rights, like to serve in the military), strikes me as an example here. Mondegreen's call for compassion towards people with pro-trans beliefs is admirable and important. But it is not universal among those on her side (just as plenty of hatred, etc, is on my side too, don't get me wrong). So the anti-trans movement has been, up until now, a coalition of those whose concerns are legitimate and those who (while possibly *also* sharing those legitimate concerns) are strongly motivated by bigotry, hatred, and disgust.
But it the is the *later* group that has come to power in the U.S. And aside from trans issues, they are doing some very scary things, like letting unelected people without security clearance have direct access to private information of every U.S. citizen, and talking about taking U.S. citizens and imprisoning them in El Salvadorian prisons.
In addition to calling for compassion, Mondegreen is saying that the fears of trans people are irrational. But I submit that they are not *all* irrational. People's passports might well be revoked, for instance, if they either have an X for a gender marker or have a gender marker that differs from their birth sex. The revocation of a passport is a real civil and human rights issue! And even if you think that gender-affirming care is wrong across the board, my understanding is that a man who has already had an orchiectomy really *needs* artificial hormones; even if you want to use the law to make him detransition, he will *still* require gender-affirming care or get very sick (from your point of view, I suppose, even sicker: but he *will* get sicker). I don't see how *anyone* not motivated by malice could object to that care—but I also see no guarantee that an administration with a lot of malice (and a lot of incompetence) in it won't do that, if only carelessly. So there *are* real fears here, in addition to some exaggerated ones.
And then, more importantly, we don't know a priori *how many* of the fears of trans people are irrational. For that matter, there is not a preexisting fact of the matter about how many of them are; the administration will go farther or less far depending on how much push back they get (we've already seen this, in their backing down from their initial defunding attempt for instance). They might well do less than a person would expect. But on the flip side, they have shown themselves willing to do flagrantly illegal and extra-constitutional things. So there are a real range of possibilities here—and some are, indeed, quite terrible.
So I think that that portion of the anti-trans movement that is *not* motivated by hatred, bigotry and disgust has both an opportunity but also a moral duty here. You have marched to victory with a coalition; but some members of that coalition do not mean well. ("...I know well how many of the most atrocious deeds at Troy came at the end, in victory’s mania.") If you want to prove that you *do* mean well—further, if you want to make it into a fact that you have been on the right side and not the wrong side here—then you must work to restrain your erstwhile (and, in some respects, still-current) allies.
Think of it this way: even if you do not agree with me that there are ANY fears that are justified on the pro-trans side, even if you think that trans people en masse need simply to be reeducated and detransitioned without compassion, what about when the movement goes BEYOND that? The current supreme court could well overturn Obergefell; and while some on the anti-trans side are not in the slightest anti-LGB—many of you are, of course, LGB—those in our society who ARE anti-LGB have been marching alongside you against the T. If and when they turn against gay and lesbian people, will you renounce your erstwhile allies then? If so, perhaps consider whether every thing they are doing to trans people is REALLY also something that you would in fact support.
I think the anti-trans side here has an opportunity but ALSO a moral duty here to realize: We have been on the right side here (by your lights, I mean), but we have been in coalition with people who mean real harm. We need to stand up now and fight NOT against trans people, who are now on the defensive and are at least to some degree (however much you think that is) endangered, but against those anti-trans people who mean real harm and are motivated by real malice.
The benefit here is that if you do this, then, if the shoe is on the other foot—and perhaps it won't be, perhaps this is permanent, but one never knows, we feared Bush's 2004 victory signaled a permanent realignment too and it did not—then those on the pro-trans side like myself who are moderate can turn to those who do wish real harm (deplatforming, shunning, etc) to the anti-trans side and say: you think that the anti-trans side is motivated SOLELY by malice, but it isn't, there are also people here with legitimate (if by our lights misguided) concerns, and we KNOW that because when they were in power THEY worked to moderate the extremists on THEIR side.
So that's my plea. I would love to hear counter-arguments, but again, please read the whole thing before making them, and please stick to this topic and not the broader one. And I hope we can all agree that while we may disagree on what counts as flourishing and what is required for flourishing, we all ought to be fighting for a world where both people who believe themselves trans and women who believe themselves threatened by trans inclusion in their spaces can flourish. I think disagreement on what that means is entirely legitimate. But there are people on BOTH sides—yours as well as mine, mine as well as yours—who DON'T want that. We who are not motivated by malice ought to at least agree that everyone deserves a right to live well, whatever we think that means. Thanks for reading.
Thanks for writing. Certainly, I don't think all the fears being expressed are irrational, though there are many very very out there claims that are. I would also be afraid if I were carrying an X passport -- if it were to be revoked and not replaced with a correct-sex passport, that would be a very serious issue -- not one being proposed but the process is unclear and uncertainty creates fear. People who've had certain surgeries will be dependent on hormones for life and their needs must be considered. There hasn't been consideration for young people already on a medical pathway -- what happens to them? I don't think young people should be transitioning but many are... is the idea that from one prescription refill to the next, they're done? And many people -- young and old -- believe this care to be life-saving. They're afraid and the Trump administration is crashing around doing all kinds of alarming things. I think previous administrations really overstepped in gender-affirming care for youth, coverage for procedures that aren't proven to be safe/effective, Title IX, supporting what I would call falsifying of identity documents, etc., but rolling those things back to a more sensible place that recognizes sex, recognizes evidence of harm and lack of evidence of benefit, etc., is sensitive and I don't trust Trump to do it carefully.
Thank you. I think if you, and other gender critical feminists of good will, were to say that loudly and clearly in the direction of those actually in power, you might do a lot of good. And thank you for engaging (an all-too-rare willingness these days, especially on this issue).
I have no idea how to be heard by those people. I've always tried to talk to my fellow progressives. I was trying to find some way to reach Trump admin about needing to think about the place young people are at when they are making these changes and communicating them and I haven't yet been able to find a way.
I don't know how you could be heard by them, either. I wish I did.
But one idea I'd suggest (without, admittedly, a huge amount of optimism) is an open letter signed by as many gender-critical people, particularly prominent ones, as possible. I would suspect that many people in the Trump administration are, as it were, true believers in cruelty; but there are probably some who view this as purely transactional politics—that GC was a constituency and this is what GC wants; a letter might convince the latter group that they can do this more compassionately and still be supporting the cause they ran on. (And of course there are probably gender critics of good will in the administration who haven't thought this angle through, and might well respond well to such a letter.) Basically, make as big a public noise as possible to convince people that they can be against all the things you're against (letting trans women in women's spaces, transition procedures for. minors, etc), while still being compassionate and thinking through the needs of people in the current trans community. Maybe get the message heard. I admit, again, that it's a long shot; but on the other hand this feels like a critical time, in which some prominent voices might well make a difference.
Would you like to be part of a group to develop materials and policies to help youth extricate themselves from the irrational parts of trans ideology? Contact me via substack messaging.
Appreciate someone with your perspective jumping in to share your views. I'm a big fan of people who consider themselves to be on opposite sides of an issue trying to understand each other better in good faith, and don't get nearly as many opportunities to do that as I'd like. With that in mind I'd love to hear your thoughts on a couple of questions if you're willing to share (put them here or direct message if you want). First though, a few things I think we are on the same page about: 1) gay rights are non-negotiable, 2) gender non-conforming people should be able to express themselves just as much as "gender-conforming" people do, 3) genuine hatred and bigotry are wrong, 4) violence, deplatforming, and shunning for holding different views are wrong, 5) gender dysphoria is a real thing that people suffer from, 6) adults should be free to live their lives as best they know how as long as they don't overly infringe on the rights of others, and 7) same for kids, though society has a special moral duty to protect and guide them as they grow into adults.
Here are my questions:
1) What does it mean to you to say you are "pro-trans"? (I put that in quotes because I don't love the term, mostly because it implies the opposite is "anti-trans" which I really don't think is a fair description of my views or the views of most people who follow Eliza's work).
2) What is your steel-man version of the views of the median gender-critical person who doesn't consider themselves "anti-trans" or bigoted?
I don't really know what to call myself, but in fairness to you here's a quick rundown of my own views that led me here. It's overly simple, but gets the basic point across:
- Biological sex in humans is real, fundamentally unchangeable, and matters in certain situations. Particularly so when it comes to protecting women from male violence.
- It doesn't make sense to describe or label a discrete "gender identity" apart from an awareness of one's sex or a sense of being relatively masculine or feminine.
- Many of the premises behind "gender-affirming-care" (high risk of suicide, evidence of psychological benefit etc.) are based on poor evidence and/or faulty assumptions, and a significant amount of the institutional support for it is driven by ideological capture, not
good evidence.
- With very few exceptions, minors can't consent to medical procedures that result in potential life-long medical consequences and should only undergo them if there is very good evidence that they would be in obvious medical danger if they didn't. Gender-affirming-care doesn't meet that standard.
- There are clear, quantifiable harms to vulnerable people as a result of the proliferation of gender ideology (women raped by men in prison, increasing numbers of detransitioners, broken families to name a few) that are hidden from the general left-leaning public by the media they trust in the name of social justice. Many people would change their minds if they were aware of these, and I suspect that's one reason they are not talked about. I include myself among them until about a year ago, and feel profoundly angry and betrayed as a result.
I could keep going and so am missing some important points, but that gets you the idea.
Thanks for engaging. From your list I suspect we are not very far apart—I have long believed that there is a moderate middle position on trans issues that could command a majority were the issue not so hopelessly polarized. I am going to try to answer your questions, although I am hesitant, both because it's getting into broader issues and I'm not sure this is the forum for it, and also because I have many, many thoughts on this and it is hard to sum them up without distortion. But you engaged in good faith and I appreciate that, so I'll try.
What do I mean by saying I am pro-trans? Honestly I think some of it is positional, which is to say, I think in *this* space I read as pro trans. I've had moments where I've been called out in both directions, largely for being in the middle: GC people call me a TRA, trans activists call me anti-trans. (You're right about "anti-trans" being a bad term (although I think there are some—not our noble hostess or you yourself, but some—whom the term fits); which is why I try to say "gender critical". If I slipped and used the other term I'm sorry.) But it's not *just* positional; I don think of myself as pro-trans. What do I mean? I think a fair amount of it is probably more emotive than anything else. I often find a lot of (moderate) gender critical views convincing, but they are all too often expressed in ways that seem cruel or dismissive of those who do have gender dysphoria. I have trans people I know & care about deeply; I think it's important to refer to people how they wish to be referred to (i.e. pronouns); when there are milestones in trans rights—such as Sarah McBride—I think it's a great thing. I think that alternate gender expression is an important thing to protect, both socially and in law (non-discrimination in housing, employment, etc). I am worried about trans people under the current American administration. That sort of thing.
As to your second question: I'm not sure I know what the *median* gender critical person believes. There's a spectrum, as there is on the other side, but I don't know quite how people fall along it—the most extreme are often the loudest. So take the following as preliminary. That said, my sense is that non-bigoted gender-critical people believe strongly in the reality of biological sex. They think that the word "woman" should be used only for adult human females in all instances. They believe that female-only spaces should be decided only by sex, both for reasons of safety and because to do otherwise in some contexts is to start down a slippery slope. They think that the blurring of the lines of sex do damages in many contexts. Many although not all (not sure where the median falls) think that using preferred pronouns is a sort of lying. They think that much of the current trans population, particularly FtM, is due to social contagion. They are probably persuaded by Blanchard's theories. Mostly they feel very strongly that women and girls are at risk, and probably the project of feminism, too. They feel that they've been silenced (socially) by the left in ways that are anti-inquiry, anti-truth, and bullying.
Where do I disagree? Mostly with emphasis, I think. But here are some points of disagreement. I think the biggest one is bathrooms: I find the evidence that trans women using women's bathrooms are a danger to (cis) women slight, and the harm in the other direction very strong—it would make it very difficult for trans women to move through public life. I would actually distinguish between bathrooms, on the one hand, and locker rooms and (especially) prisons on the other. I think it does matter whether a trans woman has had bottom surgery or not (I think there's an argument for trans women who have to be in women's prisons, but not fully intact ones, but probably the best policy would be the building of prisons (or designations of sections of prisons) for trans people. I think it's important to use the pronouns people wish to be called. Or to take another issue: I agree that trans women probably shouldn't be on women's sports teams. But I don't think it ought to be an all-or-nothing thing. I don't see much reason for excluding them for grade school, for instance. Last year at some point I saw an argument that a trans woman shouldn't be on a women's *chess* team; that struck me as ridiculous. And I think the issue ought to be based on evidence (which I agree is probably lacking): if in the fullness of time it turns out that being on HRT for a certain amount of time evens out the averages, then we should revisit the issue. Third example: I think that there is definitely contagion among young people, particularly young girls, and I think that the evidence for various affirming strategies is lacking, but I *also* think that there are clearly at least *some* kids for whom an early transition *would* be beneficial, and therefore I would be against blanket, state-imposed bans. I think doctors should be more cautious and more research should be done, but until then I think it should be up to doctors, parents and kids, not the state. Finally, while I think that trans women are not female, and I think that they are not in really important senses women (not in a strict biological sense), I also do think that in our society "women" does at times cover social categories, and that I think that trans women can be women in that sense. (Most of all, I don't think it's an all-or-nothing thing: I think that if trans women and biological men who want to be women and who try to the best of their and technology's current abilities to do so, then while it is true that they can't do it *entirely* they can make *some* changes that are not meaningless.) I find that Sophie Grace Chappell's "adoption" analogy is a good one (here if you've not seen it: https://conscienceandconsciousness.com/2018/07/11/transwomen-and-adoptive-parents-an-analogy/), and that just as we can hold two meanings for "father" in our head (both the person who provides the half of the genetic material that comes in the sperm for a child, and a male person who raises a child, such that Heather might have two daddies, but they might be daddies in two different ways) we could, if this issue were depoliticized, do the same for "woman".
I hope that answered your questions. If you want to continue this in another space, my email is YorickPenn at gmail.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Honestly, I'm having a hard time figuring out what we *disagree* on other than maybe matters of emphasis or degree (to give one example, I don't love the idea of using the legislature to regulate specific healthcare procedures. In theory that should be done by the relevant medical organizations. But I also think they've failed to effectively regulate themselves, which is why I'm probably more sympathetic to some of these state laws than you are). Which makes it all the more fascinating that we're somehow notionally on "opposite" sides of the issue. Maybe that's part of the problem. As you've suggested, I suspect there's a lot more nuance in public opinion on this (and so many other issues) that's not picked up in most of the discourse apart from places like this. Which is a shame.
Agree that this format isn't ideal for this kind of thing, even though I'm sure we could go on for a long time on any number of points you brought up. What I really wish I could do is just go out for some coffee with someone and have a conversation like this. But again, I appreciate you taking the time to engage and share your views. People taking the time to try to understand each other is always a good thing as far as I'm concerned.
Yes. Real conversations without one or both sides coming at the other like they are an existential threat; a conversation free from concerns about reputational or job loss... just ordinary human beings talking to each other. That's what is sorely needed.
Eliza, given that victimhood is the moral currency of a certain slice of the progressive left, why wouldn't hysteria reign? Who has any incentive to say, "oh, this is no big deal, my doc is pretty resourceful, we'll be fine?" That would be like Trump voters saying, "oh, the FBI isn't so bad, they only look into people who've probably done something bad." When victimhood is a competive sport (the so-called "oppression Olympics") there is every incentive to present as worse-off than your neighbor. If people admit they aren't really oppressed, then they become just another middle-class white person with nothing special about them, and who wants that?
Agreed. Strong words are needed to shock liberals back into reality. Transgenderism got this far because good people wouldn't stand up against it. I'm very enthusiastic about the three Trump EOs that stop transgender ideology. Now it's up to us to move these initiatives forward. Part of that work will be helping young transitioners realize they made a mistake. That means getting materials into our schools to help gender nonconforming youth live their true lives, accepting themselves exactly as they are so they can mature to be happy, healthy adults living in all their gender nonconforming glory. But that won't happen in blue states, which are gearing up to fight Trump and work against those of us who have rejected the Democratic Party's destruction of women's rights.
We're working with Republicans to “transition” back to sanity. We need to expand the sex and gender EO with a federal law that will support youth prevented from transitioning by Trump's EO “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.” But first, we need to use Trump's anti-DEI EO to eliminate the teaching of white guilt to children and young adults. A big part of why so many transgender youth are white is because schools and colleges have taught youth that if they are not oppressed, they are the oppressor. They can't opt out of their race, which white kids have been taught is the bad category, but they can opt into the lgbTQIAAA2S+ category. When they do, they are celebrated on social media and by our teachers, especially in blue states. So stopping the teaching of anti-white racism is where we start. Concurrently, we need to reinstate the reality of sex and teach the destructive horror of transgender ideology, from irreversible sterilization and mutilation to Democrats putting male convicted rapists in female prisons. Where they raped women, of course.
Democrats will try to obscure the damage they've caused so they can play on voters sympathies again in 2026 and 2028. We need to never let them do that again. Eliza is right. We need to step up now and help these kids. And all future youth who are susceptible to inane ideologies that destroy common sense about sex and race.
We wrote a federal bill that we offered to Democrats before giving up and working with Republicans instead. Some of our words are in the Trump EOs. We are developing materials for schools. If you are a writer or web developer who agrees with us, we could use some help. Contact me via Substack messaging.
Who is the “we” who are developing materials for schools?
Omg, the schools. Start untangling the threads of who has power to enact controversial and activist policies as a way to queer schools, aka “fuck around and find out.” And there will be legal counsel appendages playing God, you can be sure.
I already tried to communicate with you over Substack Holly. You decided not to. Why keep asking me the same question on a public article?
I couldn't agree with you more Eliza. I am able to 'spy' on my son's blsky page and it's very clear that this has solidified the resolve of these groups. Extreme statements like 'death before detransition' abound. Fear and rage are clear. It is very unfortunate and very scary.
100% agree. ‘Death before transition’ merch has been widely available on Etsy —Etsy!— for years, long before there was a perceived ‘storm coming.’ In a media climate where even healthy normies are at peak cortisol all day long, this is a reckless way to communicate sensible policy changes.
*death before detransition,* that is.
It’s nice that there are people thinking about trans people, but clearly many people prefer to keep them marginal.
I think more to the point is how we reckon with this social justice rhetoric that young people command.
The notion that the USA would naturally replace our flag with a trans flag, and we all would lift them up 🦄 and celebrate — was clearly niche.
I hear what you are saying. Yes, it would be great if someone would help these poor people deal with the reality that all their fears are idiotic. Every one of the beliefs you quoted trans people as having in this article are insane, far from grounded in any reality. (As was the entire premise of their transness and their transition.) The longer they believe such stupid ideas, the longer they will be afflicted. I don't want that for them.
However, if Trump or his administration tried to explain as you proposed, do you really think it would change these poor people's delusions and internal suffering? I don't. I think these people need help finding some purchase in reality. One good step is emphatically calling BS on the claim that "transwomen are women" and similar lies the trans community tells themselves and have demanded everyone else bow to. That's what Trump is doing. I don't think it's realistic to expect any president to have time for the subtlety you are asking for. Well, maybe Trudeau, but then again, no country including Canada wants Trudeau in charge.
I think the empathy and care you are asking for is indeed needed. The people who said the things you quoted have truly lost their marbles, and they need help. I just don't think the President of the United States is the person we should be expecting that help from.
I don't agree. The language is irrelevant to the radicalized. They would be making those posts no matter how the EO was worded.
It's the 49% who voted for Kamala who need to be (and can be) shown that gender ideology is wrong and should be opposed. The strong language has a chance to move them. Weak language does not.
Exactly. There is unfortunately nothing to be gained by pussyfooting around and playing the language game that got us into this mess in the first place. I just saw one well meaning soul on Australian television who seemed to recognise all the problems with gender ideology offering up the suggestion that the way to deal with this in a “nice” way is to put the 13 year olds on puberty blockers until they were able to “figure it out”. Again exactly how we got here with the puberty blockers opening the flood gates and putting the vast majority on a fast track to irreversible damage.
This is definitely the strongest case for Trump’s language in the EOs, and I’m sympathetic to it: that nothing but strong language will wake people up because the “normies” (so to speak) don’t understand how bad this is. However, I think we’re fortunately (and unfortunately, in a different way) past that phase. In around 2018, we were definitely in that phase with both gender and race. 2020 and the aftermath of George Floyd set a lot of people’s alarm bells off with regard to the racial side of intersectionality, but the gender stuff came into the public eye a bit later. It’s been building for a few years now, and last year was definitely a tipping point, with the Cass Review and WPATH Files, plus all the extremely obvious TIMs in women’s sports.
Because of this, I think the conservative-leaning normies were activated once they heard about the issue at all, which at this point most everybody has, and the liberal-leaning normies have gradually been activated once they saw that the “science” behind trans is a paper tiger and that indulging this leads to real-world harms, especially to women and girls. Things like the Cass Review were huge here because it’s a UK government-sponsored review of the medical literature that is impossible to dismiss as the work of cranks. So much of the reason that normies went along with this is that all the institutions were on board. Now, there’s official questioning of the narrative with damning evidence to go with it.
This is the unfortunate part: any holdouts now are not the type of people who will be shocked by strong language into understanding what’s going on. They’re either in the cult themselves, or have accepted enough of the cult logic that they will have a negative knee-jerk reaction to Trump’s language, shutting down any further thought on the topic.
I’m definitely with you on not playing language games. But in my mind, there’s a difference between the language that got us here (“trans women/men,” “gender affirming care,” “authentic self,” etc.), and the language that could be used to calm the situation down while still being truthful. For instance, instead of saying gender surgeries are “mutilation,” they could have said they “cause irreparable harm to the body.” “Mutilation” is a true description, but it’s not the only possible one, and it’s one that is needlessly inflammatory.
One could have hoped that the EO might have included some evidence as to studies that counter the ideology rather than just saying that it was 'junk science'. There was an opportunity to educate that 49% many of whom don't know that the left has their facts wrong.
The Left isn't going to believe anything that comes out of President Trump's mouth....or pen.
Exactly. It will not even matter what comes out of the recent DOGE audits. These people have made their lives into this ideology and progressive community. I know someone just this morning (her mental health declined during the first Trump admin thinking that somehow he was going to be basically enslave women or some other wacky thought - it became even worse during the pandemic) her posts on FB range from F Bombs to wanting to have someone try again with Trump, now its Zuckerberg. She shared a picture that was clearly an AI generated image of a firefighter in a huge blaze behind him carrying two black bears with the note that 'these men and women are what we should all aspire to be, they are heroes and they deserved to be treated as such.' A french presse fact checking (certified fact checking network apparently) said that this video and pictures are not real and generated by AI - she went incensed about how Zuckerberg is trying to suppress her and that fire fighters are not heros - like losing it. She is unable to see anything objectively - she believes that people are going to be round up and exterminated. Its bizarre - this is a 50 year old woman. There is nothing that can be done to reach her.
Thank you for your heartfelt reply to my comment, Stacy. We (there are two of us) have lost friends over exactly this sort of thing. We even have a Jewish friend of the leftist-socialist "Not in our name" persuasion who not just on line but in person thinks the real enemies of Jews like her and her husband are not Arab Muslims on college campuses and city centres all over the world calling for their extermination but shadowy far-right elements in the United States who are going to go after the Muslims next, once Trump allows them to take power. I understand that not all Jews support either Zionism or all the policies of the secular Israeli state but not to see the current threat seems like willful blindness, not just Trump-derangement syndrome.
I could be glib and wish that you and your friend could reconcile but I think that probably neither of you will be happier from the effort. Some people declare their characters by what they profess to believe. You don't always have to wait for deeds.
Best to you.
Please don’t assume that people who voted for Harris are trans advocates. It’s not necessarily true and leads to faulty labelling
.
As a trans widow, who has been silenced by Harris/Biden supporters and local Leftists in my Hudson Valley town, I will tell you, they believe in trans, they do not care about collateral damage and they don't want to hear it. I've been screamed at. I collect the only data in the world on trans widows. With 65 responses to my survey, I can tell you, a significant healthy 1/3 of trans identifying men are sexual abusers.
The vast majority of Harris voters are simply ignorant of the facts about trans (because the media constantly lies about them). Getting them good information is important. Trump's strongly worded EOs help do that.
I agree. A lot of those types of posts happened BEFORE the EOs. The activists have been fanning the flames all during the election and Trump winning was proof enough for them regardless of EOs. Genocide / erasure has been the battle cry for years. Even the transsexuals who believe one cannot actually change sex, men should not be in women's spaces, children need to be left alone and they celebrate the EOs are being ignored by the ones deeply entrenched.
You are right. Ideally, this can be explained in a most compassionate manner. I don't know if the indoctrinated will be able to hear the words clearly or see the compassion, but we still have to try. For example, when it comes to youth gender medicine and social transition, we might say:
The greatest strength of the United States is its acceptance of all types of people and the beautiful array of individuals such acceptance cultivates, in a melting pot that is stronger for its diversity. This is especially true when it come to our youth. We want our effeminate males, our masculine females, our unconventional, creative, unique and sensitive youth to feel accepted for who they are. We do not want to stamp out such beautiful differences by chemically and surgically assaulting those who feel out of place. We want all of our youth to remain healthy. We do not want to promote body hatred. We want all our youth to accept themselves. For that reason, we will not promote an agenda that encourages youth who feel out of place in their bodies to deny their biology and chemically and surgically alter their appearance in ways that make them less healthy.
That's just an example. The point is to speak in ways that cannot be interpreted as hateful without actively distorting the plain meaning of words.
This is an excellent, well-reasoned, compassionate comment, Hippiesq. Unfortunately, I don't think it'll make a dent with peope who are gung-ho on the trans train.
I've also tried explaining, logically and compassionately, why we should accept people in all their wild and wonderful wackiness, however they present themselves, without mutilating their bodies or indulging their delusions. I've brought up the example of "Two Spirit" people, who are accepted as normal and no-big-deal in many indigenous cultures. I think that's a healthy way for societies to function.
But every time, I've been shouted down by my supposedly liberal compatriots and called a TERF, bigot, transphobe, etc. It's their default position.
I don't know when this fever will break -- probably only when many thousands of medical malpractice lawsuits are brought against those who have aided and abetted this grotesquerie. I know that some of those lawsuits have already started, but I'm afraid it's going to take an avalanche before we see any progress.
(BTW, I hate, loathe, and despise Trump and everything he represents, but even I know a stopped clock is right twice a day. The problem is, as someone here already said, people on the purported left are automatically going to oppose everything he does.)
I agree with all of that, and I have had the same exact experience where people assume anything other than enthusiasm for lying to children, chemically and surgically altering their bodies is "hateful." And yes, because Trump (who I also don't care for at all) happens to agree with what we are saying, these people believe that, ispo facto, means we must be wrong. It's incredibly frustrating and there may be no words with which to break the spell.
To me, this proposed position statement makes a lot of sense and I can feel the kindness in it. However too many of the TRAs are aggressively hostile, even casually murderous. They seem to always be in this frame of mind, because they leap to that sort of dialogue at no provocation at all.
The problemm is not entirely in confusion and fear of not being accepted. It's also in porn addiction.
I suggest that an alternate path, which could at least start to move the 49% mentioned elsewhere, is to use approximately that same tone and reasonable fact-based argument, to raise the topic of kids being oversexualized through internet free play and contact with netizens who carry the mind virus.
Something like, "15 and 20 years ago, we were intensely worried about kids having access to adult content and topics online, or showing up in chat rooms and being seduced into having sexualizing conversations with people who mean them no good. That discussion seems to have gone away entirely. It's not good for kids to be exposed to this stuff and we need to keep the concept of adulthood and childhood distinct. etc. etc."
I'm totally failing at putting this into your beautiful language.
I think that this is potentially a wedge topic. If people can be induced to return to thinking of this sort of online activity as harmful to kids, then they might start thinking about exactly what the activity does to kids (confuses them, ruins their boundaries, objectifies them, gives them ideas about sex and relationships that are coming from the more broken among society [pedos and the -adjacent are broken], gives them ideas about sex and relationships being something that can be conducted online or in an online manner even offline, etc.)
I think compassion might have some chance with this audience. And they will need it, if they have been operating with this concern for kids' well-being shut off.
Beautifully stated, and I totally agree. What you write here is what the Democrats should have done and, if they had the slightest bit of courage, would do now. Alas.
I really don't understand where that concern went. It was so prevalent and then all of a sudden... I think it may have been internet-new media companies advocating for no controls, but I am so puzzled that somehow adults just fell silent about it.
Hippiesq for Pres 2028!
You're hysterical! :)
I hear you and have tremendous compassion for those indoctrinated. As I've stated before on here, I've lost both my children to this madness. Additionally, 'compassion' has been weaponized against well-meaning people, especially parents. I have come to believe that no matter how compassionate the administration would be, the activists will twist every single thing they say. They are beyond reasonable and not interested in solutions. It's possible that I am completely cynical at this point.
But it’s evidence based cynicism.
Completely disagree. Child mutilation is an old bandage festering with infection. Best to rip it off as quickly as possible as the Trump EO did. Scare the shit out of the doctors and hospitals participating in this ongoing atrocity.
I don't think that too many people are scared by a Trump E.O. Everyone knows he is term-limited, and he'll be gone soon -- indeed, he'll probably die in office. Once he's gone, the Dems will be back wringing their hands about 3-year-olds living in the wrong bodies. If Trump had two IQ points to rub together (which he doesn't), he'd be explaining to the nation what it is that makes transgender ideology so bizarre and wrong. But he isn't smart enough to make the arguments. Once Trump is gone, Dems will be back in power and proposing that girls have their mastectomies at age 8 instead of 13.
This interlude with Trump won't do anything to stop the bad ideas. What the country needs is an anti-transgender DEMOCRAT.
Perry: Four years is a pretty long time. I see reports of hospitals already dropping “gender affirming care” for children. This will have major impact.
I know Eliza doesn't like people arguing politics in her comments, and I don't like doing it in general, so I won't answer replies. I agree with her concerns, and I'd say I share her disappointment, but I never expected a second Trump administration to approach this or any other issue responsibly with nuance, care and compassion. They were elected to smash things, and lots of people think those things needed smashing and are happy among the debris; there are no adults in the room to sweep it up. Anyway, please add me on here if you are one of the apparently few people in the country who would call herself a TERF and also believes that orange man is, in fact, bad. Maybe I'll start a newsletter for all dozen of us.
True dat, orange man bad. I'm so mad at Democrats who have made things so bad that the worst candidate in our history just beat our Party. I don't want trans kids hurt. The only thing I want smashed is the irrational belief that Democrats are on our side when they show us over and over they are not.
So let's do what strong women and good men have always done: Break out the brooms and start saving the kids. Trump has given us a great opportunity by setting the stage to take down gender ideology. Join in folks.
Orange man is bad. Very, very bad, as it turns out. And enough voters approved that he's now in power.
Eliza, thank you so much for being a voice of reason and compassion in this. I am so disheartened seeing people on "our side" celebrating and laughing at the distress of the young people panicking about Trump's EOs. Of course I agree with the basic content if not the execution and language of the EOs. And yes, there's going to be strong emotional and behavioral reactions from a population of young people already prone to strong emotional reactions and dysregulation (that's how many of them were vulnerable to this idea in the first place) made worse by phobia indoctrination that we won't be able to fully avoid. But we need to treat these young people with compassion. People who are in the throes of high fear and high emotion and who think they are in danger - whether that perception is accurate or not - do not make good decisions. They are at high risk of hurting (either literally or metaphorically) themselves or even others. They are at high risk of making dangerous, harmful, or unhelpful impulsive decisions. If we genuinely care about these vulnerable kids and young adults - if we are really serious and what we are saying that we are doing this because we are trying to protect them - we have to think about this angle and take it seriously and respond with care and compassion, even when they are driving us crazy with hyperbolic or hysterical language and beliefs. This is not about winning a culture war. It's about protecting vulnerable people and sometimes that requires us doing things that make us feel uncomfortable or vulnerable or to meet them closer to where they are in a way that requires us to step more out of our comfort zones than we are asking them to step out of theirs. Because we are supposedly the adults who can see around the corners that they can't see around yet and who can see the bigger picture and the manipulation that they are trapped in. We aren't winning or stopping anything if we are creating the conditions for people panic and rush into more medicalization or to dig in deeper to this ideology, whether as "allies" or as trans identified young people.
Yes. My son Is caught up in this and I can’t reach him. He actually believes he is in danger and who Is supposed to be the voice of reason for him? I don’t trust he has the help he needs to use the better parts of his medicalized brain. The despair is one of an armless mother watching their child rushing past in a raging river. I do think this will cause many to dig deeper. I also know it is different for parents who have lost their beloved children to the ideology.
This fear mongering has unfortunately been adopted into their mantras for many decades. My ex-husband talked like that 30 years ago. Its part of the illness.
I am far more concerned about my Venezuelan neighbors, who have been here for five or six years and are now in danger of being deported. They really have something to lose. Half of my American neighbors irritate the hell out of me because of their entitled behavior, but the Venezuelan neighbors are totally delightful.
Gosh, maybe your anecdotal experience with illegal aliens from Venezuela should inform our federal immigration policies. That didn't work so well for Laken Riley. She was raped and murdered by José Antonio Ibarra, a Venezuelan man who entered the United States illegally but was released by the US Border Patrol under Democratic “catch and release” rules. Ibarra had been previously arrested by federal and state officials in multiple jurisdictions from New York to Georgia. He was still not deported for being in our country illegally.
Then there's the 12 year old girl Jocelyn Nungaray who was raped and murdered in Texas last summer. The US Border Patrol apprehended Johan José Martínez-Rangel near El Paso on March 14, 2024, but he was also released, free to live in our country. Border Patrol also arrested Franklin José Peña Ramos on May 28, 2024. Yep, he was also released into our country. Both those men have been arrested for the rape and murder of Jocelyn. If convicted, US taxpayers have to pay the enormous cost of keeping those men in prison. That's an add on to the devastation they caused to the family who lost their daughter, a crime which could have been avoided by simply deporting illegal aliens.
I could go on; there are hundreds more incidents that would have been avoided if only Democrats had sensible immigration policies. By the way, nothing I've said above should be construed to imply that I think:
Venezuelans are bad or dangerous people
Illegal aliens are bad or dangerous people
People of any particular race or skin color are bad or dangerous people
What I believe, along with millions of other Democrats who refused to vote for Democrats last November, is that we can be kind to people in other countries without having stupid policies that hurt us. I care about good people who are suffering in Laos and many other nations. They would also make good neighbors. But we can't have immigration policies that say, "If you can get to northern Mexico and walk across our border, we'll accommodate you, even if you don't apply for citizenship.”
Sadly, it required removing elected Democrats from power to get our government to follow it's own laws and policies that allow us to check if an illegal alien is a criminal before releasing him to rape and murder innocent Americans.
Hundreds more incidents, eh? You mentioned two.
First, my neighbors are not illegals. They are going through the legal process, but even so, Trump wants to throw them out. The son speaks about five languages and is so good at languages that he could work for the United Nations. In school in Venezuela he was studying to become a dentist. Both mother and son are FINE people (finer than you are with all your ugly prejudice).
Here is a fact for you: Immigrants who go through the legal process commit fewer crimes than Americans do. I wouldn't be surprised if it is also true that ILLEGAL immigrants commit fewer crimes than Americans do.
I was not defending illegal immigration. Let's not forget that the U.S. is a country of immigrants, and that for the first 100 years or so everybody who arrived here was let into the country. The only people who have a true RIGHT to be here are American Indians.
Citation needed. Thanks for all the anecdotal info on your great neighbors; sounds like they'll be great Americans. But please show me in Trump's executive order where it says he wants to kick them out of our country. Also, do you really need me to give you hundreds of names of people harmed by illegal aliens. You seem smart. I'm sure you can look up crime data yourself. Each incident would not have occurred if Democrats didn't have “catch and release” immigration policies. If it was you who was harmed, maybe you'd understand why it's reasonable to have the government prevent those particular crimes.
You're not very nice, you know that? Trump's contempt for immigrants extends to legal as well as illegal immigrants. I lived in NYC while Trump grew his corrupt business empire (six bankruptcies!), so I know all about him. In fact, it was only a couple weeks ago that I read an article (in the Washington Post, I think) that in Trump's first term, he did more to slow down legal immigration than illegal immigration. The article said that, so far in his second term, he is pursuing similar policies. Trump is just a racial bigot.
From the Wikipedia article on Catch and Release: "The migrants whom U.S. immigration enforcement agencies have allowed to remain in the community pending immigrant hearings have been those deemed low risk, such as children, families, and those seeking asylum." I couldn't imagine that these fine neighbors of mine, people who are better than I am and certainly better than you are, should have had to sit in detention for five years (a prison term!) while their case was adjudicated.
I feel sorry for people like you who are so frightened for your own security that you want to put people in jail who have not committed a crime beyond trying to find a better place to live.
Well that's a bizarre interpretation of what I said. You responded by attacking my both character and my intellect. If it was your granddaughter who was raped and murdered by illegal aliens, you might not be so judgmental of my anger toward the people who are hellbent on pretending Wikipedia's description of the problem is accurate: “The migrants … have been those deemed low risk, such as children, families, and those seeking asylum." Tell that to Laken Riley's family.
To be clear:
1. I don't like Trump.
2. I didn't vote for Trump
3. I won't vote for Democrats who destroy women's rights by allowing males who perform a MALE version of womanhood into female sports, female showers and other spaces, and especially female prisons where Democrats are currently facilitating rape of imprisoned women by male convicted rapists who claim to be women. Are they removing males from female spaces and sports now that the Trump Admin has asserted that sex is real? Nope. They're digging in their heels, requiring us to sue them.
4. I'm not afraid for my own security. I'm concerned about the young people who are killed thanks to irrational Democratic policies and Wiki pages that pretend we're dealing only with sweet little big eyed children. How naive! I don't want to put people in jail. I want to remove illegal aliens from our country until they have gone through a very reasonable immigration process. That includes removing murderers like José Antonio Ibarra who should have been deported after his first arrest in NY. Now we're stuck paying for that POS rapist for the rest of his life in a US prison. No, you're wrong. I DON'T want men like him in a US jail. I want policies that remove them before they rape and murder.
You don't need to convince me with your opinion of Trump. Or Wikipedia's assurances. I want better policies, and we can't get them by voting for the people who destroyed women's rights and our border security. Also, I wish you long life and I hope vote you join us in 2026 and 2028 while we fire other bad Democrats. But this time, we'll do it by hiring BETTER Democrats. Primary them!
You started arguing with me after I made some perfectly sensible comments, and now you are arguing just for the sake of it. My tolerance for bickering has reached its limit. Good night.
Nice! Oh yes, attack a woman who disagrees with you by beating her with the gender conformer stick. How awful, a woman who isn't nice!
A woman who is concerned about the safety of women (and I agree her racial concerns may be exaggerated) over those of the ambitious, downtrodden neighbours who flee to America, may have a point, or may not, but you are really betraying your misogynist politics.
When men start being nice and stop raping women, no matter what colour they are, then we'll talk about women being nice too.
Oops, a lunatic!
While it would be nice if cooler heads were the ones running things, I think that the trans community (which is very, very intertwined with the Very Online Progressive community) has been such a state of fear about "trans genocides" etc. for years now that even extremely mild criticism of trans ideology is perceived as ACTUAL VIOLENCE no matter who says it. I'm not sure they would listen to anyone.
I derive a certain malicious delight in their despair, but I realize that getting them all worked up and hugely sympathetic in the eyes of trans allies is going to make it harder to suppress gender ideology in the end.
Thank you Eliza for a well reasoned article. What people fail to understand is using inflammatory or incendiary language is not going to help someone out of a cult. And isn’t that what we are trying to do? Prevent kids from being indoctrinated AND help those already in the cult? It seems that many think these kids are losers, but the majority of the kids who fell into this are very bright and capable kids who could thrive and contribute to society once out of the cult. Mine is one. His development was sidetracked by this.
The Executive Orders and subsequent laws and policies are not directed at children. They are designed to scare the crap out of teachers and doctors who have been fooling kids. The strong, descriptive words are designed to stop the transitioning profiteers cold.
We are entering what was always going to be the most dangerous phase of this, managing the comedown. People who have been scammed out of body parts, sexuality, fertility, grandchildren, years of their lives lost to delusions, all the rest of it, are not just quietly going to take up hobbies and settle down. And that's just the good faith actors. Jonestown here we come.
When dealing with someone radicalized or deep into a delusion, there’s an argument to be made that plain language is best to reestablish reality. Don’t equivocate, don’t haggle, don’t coddle, and don’t mask anything in vague or overcomplicated language. Because doing any of can leave room for manipulation in an effort to keep the radicalization or delusion alive. A simple repetitive reestablishing of biological reality, with simple and clear boundaries stated and maintained.
We only validated patients with mental distress in extreme circumstances, but we had to have clear parameters for this because doing so could undo months or years of therapy. Or could destroy rapport completely and another team would need to be found, which can be impossible. We need to stay focused on blunt clarity, with as little room to mentally wiggle out of realty. Be honest without cruelty, knowing they WILL see reality as cruel.
What we should focus on is building support systems for parents, teachers and caregivers to provide reality focused interactions with anyone deep into trans ideology. And ensure those ready to return to reality are given an off ramp so there’s less fear of retaliation.
I disagree with Eliza. Strong words are needed to shock tolerant liberals back into reality. Transgender ideology got this far because good people wouldn't stand up against it. I'm working with a group that wants to move these initiatives forward. That means getting materials into our schools to help gender nonconforming youth live their true lives, accepting themselves exactly as they are so they can mature to be happy, healthy adults living in all their gender nonconforming glory. We can try to help young transitioners realize they made a mistake, but we'll be blocked in blue states that have geared up to fight Trump. those of us who have rejected the Democratic Party's destruction of women's rights will be blocked by Dem state governments and schools that will prevent student access to our materials.
So we'll have to work with Republicans (and the few elected Dems who join us) to “transition” back to sanity. We wrote a federal bill that we offered to Democrats before giving up and working with Republicans instead. Some of our words are in the Trump EOs. We are developing materials for schools. If you are a writer or web developer who agrees with us, we could use some help. Contact me via Substack messaging if you want to join us.
"Strong words are needed to shock tolerant liberals back into reality."
All the evidence I've ever seen is that, unless they come from an already trusted source, "strong words" don't shock people into reality; they make people retrench and double down, exactly what we don't want. I get it from an emotional standpoint, but I don't see any reason to believe it's actually effective in actually changing minds, which I think is Eliza's point.
Yes, I think it shuts people who are not already convinced down, at best.
I also disagree in the same way. The reactions have been reactionary for decades. And the trans allies are the ones who are violent! As are the married men who suddenly take this on.
I am unusual (perhaps even unique) in being a pro-trans person—moderate pro-trans, one who agrees with a lot of Gender Critical critiques and who is strongly against the shutting down of debate, but still pro-trans—who reads this newsletter. So here's a perspective different from other commentators. Please actually consider it before dismissing it, and please don't tell me why I am wrong *merely* to be pro-trans—that's a debate I'm happy to have elsewhere, but I want to focus on the issue of this post, here and now. And forgive the length here: this is an issue about which I try to speak carefully and with nuance, and then ends up long.
Here's my view: I think that perhaps the pro-trans side is not the only side with something to learn here.
Having read Eliza Mondegreen for a long time, I am sure that were she in power she would handle these issues with compassion, and that she has some very valid concerns, even if I don't agree with all of her proposed solutions. And I think that's true of a lot of the gender critical people I read on twitter and substack and elsewhere.
But there *are* people on the gender critical side (or at least the anti-trans side) who are not coming at this issue out of valid concerns (whether for women's safety and privacy, for the well-being of minors who believe themselves (rightly or wrongly) to be trans, etc). These are people who are coming out of this out of hate, disgust and bigotry. Again, I am *not* saying that these are the only reasons to oppose trans activism—I know that they aren't. But I don't think it's right to deny that *some* people oppose trans rights out of those concerns. Mondegreen says that "for Trump, the appeal is the culture war": but the *reason* that is an appeal for him is because it's popular, and the reason it's popular is because, in *addition* to reasonable concerns, there is also a lot of actual malice.
For me—and this is personal, not prescriptive—the dividing line is whether the person in question is *also* anti-gay. Someone like Matt Walsh, who is not only anti-trans but is also anti-gay (and anti a lot of women's rights, like to serve in the military), strikes me as an example here. Mondegreen's call for compassion towards people with pro-trans beliefs is admirable and important. But it is not universal among those on her side (just as plenty of hatred, etc, is on my side too, don't get me wrong). So the anti-trans movement has been, up until now, a coalition of those whose concerns are legitimate and those who (while possibly *also* sharing those legitimate concerns) are strongly motivated by bigotry, hatred, and disgust.
But it the is the *later* group that has come to power in the U.S. And aside from trans issues, they are doing some very scary things, like letting unelected people without security clearance have direct access to private information of every U.S. citizen, and talking about taking U.S. citizens and imprisoning them in El Salvadorian prisons.
In addition to calling for compassion, Mondegreen is saying that the fears of trans people are irrational. But I submit that they are not *all* irrational. People's passports might well be revoked, for instance, if they either have an X for a gender marker or have a gender marker that differs from their birth sex. The revocation of a passport is a real civil and human rights issue! And even if you think that gender-affirming care is wrong across the board, my understanding is that a man who has already had an orchiectomy really *needs* artificial hormones; even if you want to use the law to make him detransition, he will *still* require gender-affirming care or get very sick (from your point of view, I suppose, even sicker: but he *will* get sicker). I don't see how *anyone* not motivated by malice could object to that care—but I also see no guarantee that an administration with a lot of malice (and a lot of incompetence) in it won't do that, if only carelessly. So there *are* real fears here, in addition to some exaggerated ones.
And then, more importantly, we don't know a priori *how many* of the fears of trans people are irrational. For that matter, there is not a preexisting fact of the matter about how many of them are; the administration will go farther or less far depending on how much push back they get (we've already seen this, in their backing down from their initial defunding attempt for instance). They might well do less than a person would expect. But on the flip side, they have shown themselves willing to do flagrantly illegal and extra-constitutional things. So there are a real range of possibilities here—and some are, indeed, quite terrible.
So I think that that portion of the anti-trans movement that is *not* motivated by hatred, bigotry and disgust has both an opportunity but also a moral duty here. You have marched to victory with a coalition; but some members of that coalition do not mean well. ("...I know well how many of the most atrocious deeds at Troy came at the end, in victory’s mania.") If you want to prove that you *do* mean well—further, if you want to make it into a fact that you have been on the right side and not the wrong side here—then you must work to restrain your erstwhile (and, in some respects, still-current) allies.
Think of it this way: even if you do not agree with me that there are ANY fears that are justified on the pro-trans side, even if you think that trans people en masse need simply to be reeducated and detransitioned without compassion, what about when the movement goes BEYOND that? The current supreme court could well overturn Obergefell; and while some on the anti-trans side are not in the slightest anti-LGB—many of you are, of course, LGB—those in our society who ARE anti-LGB have been marching alongside you against the T. If and when they turn against gay and lesbian people, will you renounce your erstwhile allies then? If so, perhaps consider whether every thing they are doing to trans people is REALLY also something that you would in fact support.
I think the anti-trans side here has an opportunity but ALSO a moral duty here to realize: We have been on the right side here (by your lights, I mean), but we have been in coalition with people who mean real harm. We need to stand up now and fight NOT against trans people, who are now on the defensive and are at least to some degree (however much you think that is) endangered, but against those anti-trans people who mean real harm and are motivated by real malice.
The benefit here is that if you do this, then, if the shoe is on the other foot—and perhaps it won't be, perhaps this is permanent, but one never knows, we feared Bush's 2004 victory signaled a permanent realignment too and it did not—then those on the pro-trans side like myself who are moderate can turn to those who do wish real harm (deplatforming, shunning, etc) to the anti-trans side and say: you think that the anti-trans side is motivated SOLELY by malice, but it isn't, there are also people here with legitimate (if by our lights misguided) concerns, and we KNOW that because when they were in power THEY worked to moderate the extremists on THEIR side.
So that's my plea. I would love to hear counter-arguments, but again, please read the whole thing before making them, and please stick to this topic and not the broader one. And I hope we can all agree that while we may disagree on what counts as flourishing and what is required for flourishing, we all ought to be fighting for a world where both people who believe themselves trans and women who believe themselves threatened by trans inclusion in their spaces can flourish. I think disagreement on what that means is entirely legitimate. But there are people on BOTH sides—yours as well as mine, mine as well as yours—who DON'T want that. We who are not motivated by malice ought to at least agree that everyone deserves a right to live well, whatever we think that means. Thanks for reading.
Thanks for writing. Certainly, I don't think all the fears being expressed are irrational, though there are many very very out there claims that are. I would also be afraid if I were carrying an X passport -- if it were to be revoked and not replaced with a correct-sex passport, that would be a very serious issue -- not one being proposed but the process is unclear and uncertainty creates fear. People who've had certain surgeries will be dependent on hormones for life and their needs must be considered. There hasn't been consideration for young people already on a medical pathway -- what happens to them? I don't think young people should be transitioning but many are... is the idea that from one prescription refill to the next, they're done? And many people -- young and old -- believe this care to be life-saving. They're afraid and the Trump administration is crashing around doing all kinds of alarming things. I think previous administrations really overstepped in gender-affirming care for youth, coverage for procedures that aren't proven to be safe/effective, Title IX, supporting what I would call falsifying of identity documents, etc., but rolling those things back to a more sensible place that recognizes sex, recognizes evidence of harm and lack of evidence of benefit, etc., is sensitive and I don't trust Trump to do it carefully.
Thank you. I think if you, and other gender critical feminists of good will, were to say that loudly and clearly in the direction of those actually in power, you might do a lot of good. And thank you for engaging (an all-too-rare willingness these days, especially on this issue).
I have no idea how to be heard by those people. I've always tried to talk to my fellow progressives. I was trying to find some way to reach Trump admin about needing to think about the place young people are at when they are making these changes and communicating them and I haven't yet been able to find a way.
I don't know how you could be heard by them, either. I wish I did.
But one idea I'd suggest (without, admittedly, a huge amount of optimism) is an open letter signed by as many gender-critical people, particularly prominent ones, as possible. I would suspect that many people in the Trump administration are, as it were, true believers in cruelty; but there are probably some who view this as purely transactional politics—that GC was a constituency and this is what GC wants; a letter might convince the latter group that they can do this more compassionately and still be supporting the cause they ran on. (And of course there are probably gender critics of good will in the administration who haven't thought this angle through, and might well respond well to such a letter.) Basically, make as big a public noise as possible to convince people that they can be against all the things you're against (letting trans women in women's spaces, transition procedures for. minors, etc), while still being compassionate and thinking through the needs of people in the current trans community. Maybe get the message heard. I admit, again, that it's a long shot; but on the other hand this feels like a critical time, in which some prominent voices might well make a difference.
Would you like to be part of a group to develop materials and policies to help youth extricate themselves from the irrational parts of trans ideology? Contact me via substack messaging.
If this is an invite to me, I am unfortunately completely drowning work-wise at the moment.
Thank you, Yorick. I am not a prominent voice, but I do agree with you.
Appreciate someone with your perspective jumping in to share your views. I'm a big fan of people who consider themselves to be on opposite sides of an issue trying to understand each other better in good faith, and don't get nearly as many opportunities to do that as I'd like. With that in mind I'd love to hear your thoughts on a couple of questions if you're willing to share (put them here or direct message if you want). First though, a few things I think we are on the same page about: 1) gay rights are non-negotiable, 2) gender non-conforming people should be able to express themselves just as much as "gender-conforming" people do, 3) genuine hatred and bigotry are wrong, 4) violence, deplatforming, and shunning for holding different views are wrong, 5) gender dysphoria is a real thing that people suffer from, 6) adults should be free to live their lives as best they know how as long as they don't overly infringe on the rights of others, and 7) same for kids, though society has a special moral duty to protect and guide them as they grow into adults.
Here are my questions:
1) What does it mean to you to say you are "pro-trans"? (I put that in quotes because I don't love the term, mostly because it implies the opposite is "anti-trans" which I really don't think is a fair description of my views or the views of most people who follow Eliza's work).
2) What is your steel-man version of the views of the median gender-critical person who doesn't consider themselves "anti-trans" or bigoted?
I don't really know what to call myself, but in fairness to you here's a quick rundown of my own views that led me here. It's overly simple, but gets the basic point across:
- Biological sex in humans is real, fundamentally unchangeable, and matters in certain situations. Particularly so when it comes to protecting women from male violence.
- It doesn't make sense to describe or label a discrete "gender identity" apart from an awareness of one's sex or a sense of being relatively masculine or feminine.
- Many of the premises behind "gender-affirming-care" (high risk of suicide, evidence of psychological benefit etc.) are based on poor evidence and/or faulty assumptions, and a significant amount of the institutional support for it is driven by ideological capture, not
good evidence.
- With very few exceptions, minors can't consent to medical procedures that result in potential life-long medical consequences and should only undergo them if there is very good evidence that they would be in obvious medical danger if they didn't. Gender-affirming-care doesn't meet that standard.
- There are clear, quantifiable harms to vulnerable people as a result of the proliferation of gender ideology (women raped by men in prison, increasing numbers of detransitioners, broken families to name a few) that are hidden from the general left-leaning public by the media they trust in the name of social justice. Many people would change their minds if they were aware of these, and I suspect that's one reason they are not talked about. I include myself among them until about a year ago, and feel profoundly angry and betrayed as a result.
I could keep going and so am missing some important points, but that gets you the idea.
Thanks for engaging. From your list I suspect we are not very far apart—I have long believed that there is a moderate middle position on trans issues that could command a majority were the issue not so hopelessly polarized. I am going to try to answer your questions, although I am hesitant, both because it's getting into broader issues and I'm not sure this is the forum for it, and also because I have many, many thoughts on this and it is hard to sum them up without distortion. But you engaged in good faith and I appreciate that, so I'll try.
What do I mean by saying I am pro-trans? Honestly I think some of it is positional, which is to say, I think in *this* space I read as pro trans. I've had moments where I've been called out in both directions, largely for being in the middle: GC people call me a TRA, trans activists call me anti-trans. (You're right about "anti-trans" being a bad term (although I think there are some—not our noble hostess or you yourself, but some—whom the term fits); which is why I try to say "gender critical". If I slipped and used the other term I'm sorry.) But it's not *just* positional; I don think of myself as pro-trans. What do I mean? I think a fair amount of it is probably more emotive than anything else. I often find a lot of (moderate) gender critical views convincing, but they are all too often expressed in ways that seem cruel or dismissive of those who do have gender dysphoria. I have trans people I know & care about deeply; I think it's important to refer to people how they wish to be referred to (i.e. pronouns); when there are milestones in trans rights—such as Sarah McBride—I think it's a great thing. I think that alternate gender expression is an important thing to protect, both socially and in law (non-discrimination in housing, employment, etc). I am worried about trans people under the current American administration. That sort of thing.
As to your second question: I'm not sure I know what the *median* gender critical person believes. There's a spectrum, as there is on the other side, but I don't know quite how people fall along it—the most extreme are often the loudest. So take the following as preliminary. That said, my sense is that non-bigoted gender-critical people believe strongly in the reality of biological sex. They think that the word "woman" should be used only for adult human females in all instances. They believe that female-only spaces should be decided only by sex, both for reasons of safety and because to do otherwise in some contexts is to start down a slippery slope. They think that the blurring of the lines of sex do damages in many contexts. Many although not all (not sure where the median falls) think that using preferred pronouns is a sort of lying. They think that much of the current trans population, particularly FtM, is due to social contagion. They are probably persuaded by Blanchard's theories. Mostly they feel very strongly that women and girls are at risk, and probably the project of feminism, too. They feel that they've been silenced (socially) by the left in ways that are anti-inquiry, anti-truth, and bullying.
Where do I disagree? Mostly with emphasis, I think. But here are some points of disagreement. I think the biggest one is bathrooms: I find the evidence that trans women using women's bathrooms are a danger to (cis) women slight, and the harm in the other direction very strong—it would make it very difficult for trans women to move through public life. I would actually distinguish between bathrooms, on the one hand, and locker rooms and (especially) prisons on the other. I think it does matter whether a trans woman has had bottom surgery or not (I think there's an argument for trans women who have to be in women's prisons, but not fully intact ones, but probably the best policy would be the building of prisons (or designations of sections of prisons) for trans people. I think it's important to use the pronouns people wish to be called. Or to take another issue: I agree that trans women probably shouldn't be on women's sports teams. But I don't think it ought to be an all-or-nothing thing. I don't see much reason for excluding them for grade school, for instance. Last year at some point I saw an argument that a trans woman shouldn't be on a women's *chess* team; that struck me as ridiculous. And I think the issue ought to be based on evidence (which I agree is probably lacking): if in the fullness of time it turns out that being on HRT for a certain amount of time evens out the averages, then we should revisit the issue. Third example: I think that there is definitely contagion among young people, particularly young girls, and I think that the evidence for various affirming strategies is lacking, but I *also* think that there are clearly at least *some* kids for whom an early transition *would* be beneficial, and therefore I would be against blanket, state-imposed bans. I think doctors should be more cautious and more research should be done, but until then I think it should be up to doctors, parents and kids, not the state. Finally, while I think that trans women are not female, and I think that they are not in really important senses women (not in a strict biological sense), I also do think that in our society "women" does at times cover social categories, and that I think that trans women can be women in that sense. (Most of all, I don't think it's an all-or-nothing thing: I think that if trans women and biological men who want to be women and who try to the best of their and technology's current abilities to do so, then while it is true that they can't do it *entirely* they can make *some* changes that are not meaningless.) I find that Sophie Grace Chappell's "adoption" analogy is a good one (here if you've not seen it: https://conscienceandconsciousness.com/2018/07/11/transwomen-and-adoptive-parents-an-analogy/), and that just as we can hold two meanings for "father" in our head (both the person who provides the half of the genetic material that comes in the sperm for a child, and a male person who raises a child, such that Heather might have two daddies, but they might be daddies in two different ways) we could, if this issue were depoliticized, do the same for "woman".
I hope that answered your questions. If you want to continue this in another space, my email is YorickPenn at gmail.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Honestly, I'm having a hard time figuring out what we *disagree* on other than maybe matters of emphasis or degree (to give one example, I don't love the idea of using the legislature to regulate specific healthcare procedures. In theory that should be done by the relevant medical organizations. But I also think they've failed to effectively regulate themselves, which is why I'm probably more sympathetic to some of these state laws than you are). Which makes it all the more fascinating that we're somehow notionally on "opposite" sides of the issue. Maybe that's part of the problem. As you've suggested, I suspect there's a lot more nuance in public opinion on this (and so many other issues) that's not picked up in most of the discourse apart from places like this. Which is a shame.
Agree that this format isn't ideal for this kind of thing, even though I'm sure we could go on for a long time on any number of points you brought up. What I really wish I could do is just go out for some coffee with someone and have a conversation like this. But again, I appreciate you taking the time to engage and share your views. People taking the time to try to understand each other is always a good thing as far as I'm concerned.
Yes. Real conversations without one or both sides coming at the other like they are an existential threat; a conversation free from concerns about reputational or job loss... just ordinary human beings talking to each other. That's what is sorely needed.