Jonathan Chait pays a visit to the magical floating la-la land of “broadly correct principles” where progressives can stake out a happy, morally superior, and politically viable middle ground on trans issues:
The idea of "compromise" with these neo-Lysenkoists is laughable. How can there be a "compromise position" between material truth and fantasist lies?
While we're at it, should we "meet halfway" with flat earthers, and reach an "agreement" that Earth is shaped like a hockey puck?
.
"Equal protection in housing and employment" already IS a guaranteed right regardless of "gender identity" or sexual orientation.
No thanks to the Democrats, though; this was decided by the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court in its 2020 Bostock decision, which extended the housing and employment nondiscrimination provisions of the 1964 federal Civil Rights Act to those two extra types of classes.
Of course, that doesn't stop Dems and their TRA-captured propaganda media outlets from slipping "equal housing and employment" into various contexts to try and trick readers into thinking they have common cause with "trans rights". A particularly egregious example is here: https://x.com/conora05/status/1855226623915651103
.
Finally, when Chait says
>> the third-most-common reason swing voters and late deciders in one survey gave for opposing Harris was that she “is focused more on cultural issues like transgender issues rather than helping the middle class <<
...either he's lying, or else he just doesn't know that 28 is more than 22 or 23.
"Too focused on cultural issues such as trans issues" is the third LINE—meaning that it's third place in the statistical sum of ALL voter types represented in the chart—but among swing voters, it's the ••MOST•• important issue BY A SOLID MARGIN.
Swing voters even have their own column—which is why I suspect Chait is just lying, for reasons similar to the various subterfuges called out in the xwitter post above.
Aaaaannnd
keep in mind that
* the polling outfits are still too craven to give transgenderism its OWN response to these surveys (vs. dumping it into a catch-all "CuLtUrE wAr" category)
and, most importantly of all,
* the American electorate only knows the teeny tiny top of the tip of the GIANT iceberg of transgenderist abuse, institutional privilege, and sexual violence. Most have NO clue that there are predatory men "identifying into" Women's prisons, disabled and elder care facilities, rape shelters, homeless shelters, and other such places where a fresh group of ACTUALLY vulnerable, ACTUALLY marginalized WOMEN—and children, too, in family shelters—are perfectly placed to be the next victims.
Most Americans haven't seen much more of the trans industrial complex than Dylan Mulvaney, non-military "admiral" Dick "Rachel" Levine, and William "Lia" Thomas.
Oh just I M A G I N E how much more "AnTi TrAnS" the country will turn as people actually begin to learn about all the really really bad shit.
"* the American electorate only knows the teeny tiny top of the tip of the GIANT iceberg of transgenderist abuse, institutional privilege, and sexual violence. Most have NO clue that there are predatory men "identifying into" Women's prisons, disabled and elder care facilities, rape shelters, homeless shelters, and other such places where a fresh group of ACTUALLY vulnerable, ACTUALLY marginalized WOMEN—and children, too, in family shelters—are perfectly placed to be the next victims."
THIS!!!! 👆👆👆👆👆👆
Part of the problem is that the extremes of trans ideology are SO unbelievable that trying to even get people to listen is impossible. They simply cannot grasp the enormity of the risk to women and children and refuse to engage. The level of denial is pathological. I know. I've tried. I've even tried the gentle, simple approach with straightforward examples that they know happen. But the moment I bring in slightly more extreme examples, I am immediately shut down. But those extreme examples are EXACTLY why our collective response MUST be commensurate with the threat. It's absolutely terrifying some of the examples that Glinner's substack shows every single week. I blame mainstream media for the extreme censorship which is enabling these predators, fetishists and just plain evil men getting as far as they have without being shamed out of existence.
This is absolutely a men's rights movement at its core. It has effectively destroyed feminism. In that sense it's been a brilliant move by patriarchal oligarchs who needed to find a way to either shut up women or discredit the movement so that we lose all credibility in the eyes of the public. It has set back the women's movement decades after so many hard-won victories.
Our granddaughter's will curse our name if we lose this battle because they may never realize just how diabolical patriarchy really is to have stripped them of their future free from male violence, exploitation and predation.
The question for me, as an anti-trans activist (but one who wants to come across as reasonable), is: How common are these things you are talking about? In every population, there is an outer fringe of people who do extreme things. For example, I'm sure that anti-abortion activists were not supportive of the man who terrorized the U.S. and Canada shooting abortion doctors. In my writing about transgenderism, I generally cover the mainstream bad stuff that trans people are doing, not the the stuff on the fringe. I mean, the mainstream bad stuff is bad enough to change people's minds.
(There is something wrong with the software today. To post a long note, I have to post something short and then edit it and insert the longer note. Is anyone else having this problem?)
Thanks for letting me know it isn't my browser or some other problem on my computer.
When I post a longer comment, I am unable to click Save to send it, so what I do is I copy the comment, post a short comment (just one character is enough). And then I edit that short comment and insert the longer comment. That works for me.
"Mainstream" evolves awfully quickly with those people, though. Today's "fringe" TQ+ pet causes WILL be "mainstream" within 6 months, 1 year, AT MOST 2 years. As long as you're filtering these focus points with that in mind, then, sure.
Just as a reference point, the first time ANY federal-level Democratic Party politician here in the USA publicly brought up the notion that CHILDREN can be "transgender" was in... 2022. Almost a year and a half into Biden's term—and that was the first ever MENTION by a Dem politician at the federal level, not even touching the third rail of medicalizing children yet.
Now look how far gone the ••entire party•• at the federal level is on all that shit. Even the blue dog centrists.
"Just as a reference point, the first time ANY federal-level Democratic Party politician here in the USA publicly brought up the notion that CHILDREN can be "transgender" was in... 2022."
Not sure how to verify that, or its significance. Nor do I share the overview you seem to have of the party. Whatever facts you are speaking from, I'm not familiar with. I don't even know who is "blue dog" and who isn't.
A possible positive view of Chait’s piece is that he’s finally decided, like so many other pundits, that the issue is unavoidable. I think all pundits start thinking there’s plenty of room for compromise.
Ideally, if he spends any more time thinking or is yelled at for not believing a man is a biological female, he might begin to understand the issue better. He might be at the beginning of his gender journey, in other words.
I saw a meme of people on a roller coaster. The people with neat hair and unmussed clothing in the cars ascending the hill were new to gender ideology and believed compromise was possible. They were staring at people in the cars coming down the hill, who were wild eyed with hair flying and tattered clothing —they were the people who had been fighting gender ideology for awhile already.
I think of that image a lot because I feel like I’ve experienced it.
Let’s hope Chait is on his way up the roller coaster but will soon be on the way down.
I have such a sufficiently black sense of humour that I found Chaits article quite funny because it shows how far even "moderate" democrat positions are from reality on this issue.
It's crap like this that makes me wonder if I'll even want to identify as leftwing/liberal/progressive ever again. If Transgenderism really is the logical endpoint of Liberalism, Progressivism, and The Left then it's time to admit defeat, burn the whole rotten edifice to the ground, salt the earth, and start over with something else. I just need to come up with a new name...
One of the reasons Mr. Chait doesn't know the actual facts on family devastation, detransition, the shockingly higher suicide rate years after "sex reassignment surgery," and Chait's ignorance of the growing ranks of trans widows, the ex-wives and trans orphans, the children of (who grieve for the loss of a father) is the reporting boundaries thrown onto news outlets through a webpage called "Trans Journalists Association Style Guide." This Orwellian document forbids reporting on the above inconvenient human beings, the collateral damage. At all times, even when this is a murderer who killed his wife (Keir Anderson, CA, serving 25 to life in the women's section) reporters are to ask him how he wants to be referenced. In fact, these crimes are not to be reported at all. When studies, such as the one on puberty blockers in teens, funded with $9.7 million by the US NIH, come up with negative results, Trans Journalists Association Style Guide says, "bury them." This is exactly what Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy did. She'll be called to testify before Congress, for sure. Chait will hopefully watch and actually listen to the content, rather than ignore the questions from Nancy Mace, that "mean transphobe" on the Congressional Oversight Committee.
Why in hell should the "Trans Journalists Ass'n Style Guide" have any say in anything? The title sounds like some bullet point document that TIMs and TIFs would use as their playbook, not inflict on the rest of the world. Orwellian indeed.
They play into the news outlets' tendencies to want accolades from HRC, GLAAD and the like for virtue signaling. This is at the expense of actual journalism.
I wonder if it's time to drop the 'trans-identified' prefix. For example, a news report might say "Suzy Trulove, a 38 year old male from Olympia, Washington, exposed his genitals in the women's restroom at the down-town WalMart." Just the facts, ma'am.
Even using the term "trans-identified male" would be a step in the right direction for the media, which now generally calls Susie a woman with no further explanation.
Yeah, this belief the individual holds about themselves just seems like a completely irrelevant piece of information most of the time. "Suzy Trulove, a 38-year-old male from Olympia, Washington whose favourite flavour of ice cream is chocolate..."
I mean, I'm sure that IS his favourite flavour of ice cream, but who cares? It has nothing to do with the story. It has no bearing on the crime he committed one way or the other.
Right, we might infer the suspect's gender identity from their adopted name or appearance in the police mugshot, but it's irrelevant to the facts of the case. The opposing argument is that behaviour which would be criminal for a 'cisgender' male is somehow acceptable, which is literal transgender privilege. Similar to the Liberty Five who argued for the right of sadists to harm masochists on the basis of consent being obtained.
Ahh but there are so many layers of rot to tear out before we can even go there.
For starters, you'd have to get rid of this 'new normal' across the entire western "free" press, in which "trans" people get their trans card summarily revoked, effective immediately, as soon as it comes to light that they've done bad things... in which case they go back to being crossdressed men (or, in the case of TIF criminals like Audrey Hale, the Nashville Covenant School shooter, mysteriously become "she/her" again).
Here's one you should bookmark and carry around with you, where both sides of this mystic divide are shamelessly written into the same story:
in a trashed room witha bunch of junkie paraphernalia—but hiding in the next room with the 5- to 10-year-old children they were almost certainly abusing in horrifying ways, were FIVE
→ "men dressed in women's clothing" ←
oh and remember, this is the Daily Mail, which has actually been one of the TINY handful of major outlets that has consistently poked its head above the battlements and reported violent sex crimes perpetrated by TIMs that are not covered anywhere else.
At least 99 percent of the media is even worse than this.
So, you want us to believe that being trans means (or can mean) being criminal too. I already know that a lot of them go into porn, and a lot of them go into prostitution, but I was willing to believe that that was because no one else would employ them. But you are saying it is more than that.
Insofar as porn is concerned, there is apparently a significant demand for pictures of women with male genitalia. (Which I have always found ironic, because it means those trans women are admitting that they are men by putting their male genitals on display.) As far as prostitution is concerned, however, I think that most men who hire a prostitute want a real woman. If there is a market for women with male genitals, I don't think there is a way for those trans women to connect with the men who might want them.
Do you have a reason why trans women might be interested in kids? I'm gay, and I've never found pre-pubescent bodies sexually interesting.
Well for starters... using data from the UK, US and Canadian prison systems—where one can only imagine the heroic persistence needed to publish those data from under the thumb of the Biden or Trudeau administrations—TIMs ("trans women") are overrepresented by 4 to 7 times compared to the base rate of incarceration for men overall.
But, the main concern is, between 57% (UK) and 71% (Canada) of ALL the "trans women" are incarcerated for VIOLENT SEX CRIMES.
A brief perusal of 'Murderpedia' reveals a statistically relevant number of violent, mass and serial murderers as having a cross dressing fetish. Paraphilias and violence seem to go hand in hand, something that seems to have been forgotten in the last decade or so.
In the West, there is a subset of individuals who reject social assimilation and go out of their way to be transgressive, aided and abetted by activist lawyers. For them, transgender performance wouldn't be appealing unless it broke social norms, so I doubt that behaviour has anything to do with innate identity. I wrote about it in my article https://genspect.substack.com/p/gender-affirming-care-is-a-social - comments welcome.
I think that statistic makes sense. First, a lot of the male prisoners may be claiming to be trans women to get into a women's prison. (Are trans women still being incarcerated with women in those countries?) Even if they are real trans women, I suspect that if you are screwed up sexually enough to want to be the opposite gender, you might just be screwed up enough to have related sexual issues. I agree that there is a seamy side to transgenderism.
As a gay man, however, I also have to acknowledge that there is a seamy side to homosexuality, but that is for other reasons. When you have men having sex with men, the constraints that heterosexuals feel (to avoid pregnancy) are not there. Also, the ease of giving a blowjob allows gay men to have sex in public, whereas coitus usually involves lying down (or doesn't it? I'm not heterosexual, so I don't know if stand-up sex is an option for straights). Lovely topic, isn't this?
A market in the exploitation of feminised males does exist in countries where it is socially unacceptable for a man to be gay, for example Brazil or Turkey.
Interesting that he thinks that the problem with youth transition is the lack of a proper medical diagnosis. I wonder what he means by that. I suspect he doesn’t know what he means. You can only advocate for the “middle ground” if you don’t think too deeply about the issue.
Chait is one of those “cishet” trans allies who does not know that “trans kids” don’t exist and that most gender nonconforming youth and children with gender dysphoria will desist during adolescence and become the gay or lesbian people they were meant to be.
As for correctly diagnosing gender confused children, Chait seems not to know that the gender-affirming model eschews diagnosis in favor of “whatever the kid says goes.” Moreover, he seems unaware that trans activists and most trans allies view any effort to identify the cause of a child’s gender problems as a form of hateful transphobia.
Since the mighty Atlantic can’t be bothered to run a readers’ comments operation, readers of Chait’s piece won’t have the advantage of comments by sex realist readers to fill the gaps caused by Chait’s lack of knowledge.
Holy shit, Eliza! One of my favorites of yours, for sure. Especially the last line,"In other words: the ‘cause’ is 100% pernicious bullshit and the sooner the adults in the room can just say so, the better." AMEN!!!
"A lot of good progressives want to avoid the obvious conclusion here, which is that we really fucked this up. There’s no worthy cause to salvage here."
Thank you, Eliza. So well put. The paragraph that follows is essential reading.
Eliza, I really appreciate your recent writing where you “tell it like it is” and are less careful about seeming above the fray. A touch of sarcasm is absolutely appropriate and much appreciated in going as far as to describe some pro-trans “logic” as “pernicious bullshit”. Thank you.
I find it quite interesting that Chait is so clear-eyed on the harms of social media but fails to make the connection between social media and transgenderism broadly.
For Haidt, gender dysphoria is the one mental health trend graph he has been unwilling to show. Wants to keep broad appeal and fears transphobe accusations I guess.
Yeah, he seems reluctant to talk about it, but I suspect he understands it better than Chait. Like Jackson, I respect what is likely a strategic choice to avoid making his name mud to half the political spectrum in hopes of effecting change for more kids. Sucks that he's in that bind, but I'm hopeful that the non-trans-specific policy changes he's getting will redound to the benefit of kids affected by gender ideology.
He gave at a very brief acknowledgement of the increase in gender dysphoria in The Anxious Generation. Given his goals (which I thoroughly support) I think it's probably a good strategic play to otherwise not go there for now, but it seems pretty clear from context (referencing an interview he did with Kara Swisher earlier this year) that he understands well enough what's happening with gender and ROGD.
Respect - no, sorry. There is no inherent "right" to respect. The best and most positive thing that anyone can do with these freaks is a hearty laugh. They don't pass. The women pretending to be men look hyper-masculine, but like midgets - 3/4 lumberjacks. The men pretending to be women look like prostitutes, and, since they can't get a normal job, they often are prostitutes. That accounts for the high rate of trannie murder - Johns who don't want a fag encounter and get testy.
I can clock either of them by their gait. Hips don't lie.
But having been around men all my life, I certainly don't understand the 5'2" women who think that being a short, fat male is going to improve their status in life.
Progressives have latched onto the idea that it is kind to pretend and in the context of day to day life politeness requires that we elide the truth constantly. But it is not kind to extend our protections of this pretend life to a child's future. Ultimately it is not kind to avoid the truth. The de-trans crowd has every right to be furious with an establishment that thinks otherwise.
If you are a trans woman there are a few things that you need to understand. First of all is that you are still a man because you can't change your biological sex. It's okay to dress any way you wish and to adopt any superficial, stereotypical attributes of women that you desire. Live your life. No one should care, I certainly don't. However, because women are entitled to be treated fairly and to enjoy privacy from men there are certain things that are prohibited to you and me because we are men. You can't compete against women in most sports because it would be unfair. You can't go into women's private places like restrooms and locker rooms because that would make them feel unsafe. Finally, if you are a criminal you certainly can't be imprisoned with women.
"Protection from discrimination in employment and housing is an easy yes. " Actually, No. Let's get back to the fundamental issue.
Obsessively believing that one is something that one is manifestly not -- whether that be a member of the opposite sex, a victim of a near-universal conspiracy, or the one true prophet of God -- is a mental disorder. Pretending otherwise, out of whatever well-meaning motivation, is the original mistake. Mandating a change in the use of words doesn't change the shape of reality, it just makes those words less useful and cripples discussion until new words are adopted to cover the original concepts.
Legally requiring everyone to pretend that something abnormal and unhealthy is actually normal and healthy is both an over-extension of government coercive powers and disruptive to social relations. Society cannot thrive without many extra-legal conventions of behavior that are spontaneously organized and enforced at the individual level, reflecting human nature, individual preferences and environmental constraints. Laws that require people to act against their self-interest invite reactions that undermine the original intent and make things worse, much like rent-control reduces housing availability. Forcing schools to hire zealous transsexual teachers incentivises parents to homeschool, leading to further decline in support for public education.
It is not necessary that everyone else in society pretend that I’m fully fungible with anyone else for me to live a decent life, with dignity. It’s probably best that I find a milieu in which I’m most compatible, that benefits from my strengths and can tolerate my faults. Working out where that is, and how much I can adapt myself in order to achieve my goals, is probably good for my personal development. There was no law prohibiting landlords from discriminating against hippies, yet they found places to live and eventually took over e.g. Berkeley. There are no laws prohibiting job discrimination against people with bad grammar or face tattoos, yet some fields employ many of them.
I should have been more clear. I don't think people should be discriminated against in housing or employment settings (unless those settings are sex-specific, e.g., women's housing, domestic-violence shelters, etc.) for holding unusual personal *beliefs* about gender.
The trans process as I’ve observed it has no beginning and no end - trans delusion is about removing things which reinforce the perception of reality - relabel your body to pretend it’s female, disguise appearance, medical disguise, remove reminders of sex from biology, remove reminders of women in society, remove reminders of women and corrupt law, and finally remove reminders of women in language, remove or punish women directly for reminding you you’re not a woman.(women don’t exist) - but ever morning you aren’t a women, and will never be.
The idea of "compromise" with these neo-Lysenkoists is laughable. How can there be a "compromise position" between material truth and fantasist lies?
While we're at it, should we "meet halfway" with flat earthers, and reach an "agreement" that Earth is shaped like a hockey puck?
.
"Equal protection in housing and employment" already IS a guaranteed right regardless of "gender identity" or sexual orientation.
No thanks to the Democrats, though; this was decided by the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court in its 2020 Bostock decision, which extended the housing and employment nondiscrimination provisions of the 1964 federal Civil Rights Act to those two extra types of classes.
Of course, that doesn't stop Dems and their TRA-captured propaganda media outlets from slipping "equal housing and employment" into various contexts to try and trick readers into thinking they have common cause with "trans rights". A particularly egregious example is here: https://x.com/conora05/status/1855226623915651103
.
Finally, when Chait says
>> the third-most-common reason swing voters and late deciders in one survey gave for opposing Harris was that she “is focused more on cultural issues like transgender issues rather than helping the middle class <<
...either he's lying, or else he just doesn't know that 28 is more than 22 or 23.
because, see, here's the exact datagraphic Chait is taking about: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GcBM0rKW8AA1omI.jpg
"Too focused on cultural issues such as trans issues" is the third LINE—meaning that it's third place in the statistical sum of ALL voter types represented in the chart—but among swing voters, it's the ••MOST•• important issue BY A SOLID MARGIN.
Swing voters even have their own column—which is why I suspect Chait is just lying, for reasons similar to the various subterfuges called out in the xwitter post above.
Aaaaannnd
keep in mind that
* the polling outfits are still too craven to give transgenderism its OWN response to these surveys (vs. dumping it into a catch-all "CuLtUrE wAr" category)
and, most importantly of all,
* the American electorate only knows the teeny tiny top of the tip of the GIANT iceberg of transgenderist abuse, institutional privilege, and sexual violence. Most have NO clue that there are predatory men "identifying into" Women's prisons, disabled and elder care facilities, rape shelters, homeless shelters, and other such places where a fresh group of ACTUALLY vulnerable, ACTUALLY marginalized WOMEN—and children, too, in family shelters—are perfectly placed to be the next victims.
Most Americans haven't seen much more of the trans industrial complex than Dylan Mulvaney, non-military "admiral" Dick "Rachel" Levine, and William "Lia" Thomas.
Oh just I M A G I N E how much more "AnTi TrAnS" the country will turn as people actually begin to learn about all the really really bad shit.
"* the American electorate only knows the teeny tiny top of the tip of the GIANT iceberg of transgenderist abuse, institutional privilege, and sexual violence. Most have NO clue that there are predatory men "identifying into" Women's prisons, disabled and elder care facilities, rape shelters, homeless shelters, and other such places where a fresh group of ACTUALLY vulnerable, ACTUALLY marginalized WOMEN—and children, too, in family shelters—are perfectly placed to be the next victims."
THIS!!!! 👆👆👆👆👆👆
Part of the problem is that the extremes of trans ideology are SO unbelievable that trying to even get people to listen is impossible. They simply cannot grasp the enormity of the risk to women and children and refuse to engage. The level of denial is pathological. I know. I've tried. I've even tried the gentle, simple approach with straightforward examples that they know happen. But the moment I bring in slightly more extreme examples, I am immediately shut down. But those extreme examples are EXACTLY why our collective response MUST be commensurate with the threat. It's absolutely terrifying some of the examples that Glinner's substack shows every single week. I blame mainstream media for the extreme censorship which is enabling these predators, fetishists and just plain evil men getting as far as they have without being shamed out of existence.
This is absolutely a men's rights movement at its core. It has effectively destroyed feminism. In that sense it's been a brilliant move by patriarchal oligarchs who needed to find a way to either shut up women or discredit the movement so that we lose all credibility in the eyes of the public. It has set back the women's movement decades after so many hard-won victories.
Our granddaughter's will curse our name if we lose this battle because they may never realize just how diabolical patriarchy really is to have stripped them of their future free from male violence, exploitation and predation.
The question for me, as an anti-trans activist (but one who wants to come across as reasonable), is: How common are these things you are talking about? In every population, there is an outer fringe of people who do extreme things. For example, I'm sure that anti-abortion activists were not supportive of the man who terrorized the U.S. and Canada shooting abortion doctors. In my writing about transgenderism, I generally cover the mainstream bad stuff that trans people are doing, not the the stuff on the fringe. I mean, the mainstream bad stuff is bad enough to change people's minds.
(There is something wrong with the software today. To post a long note, I have to post something short and then edit it and insert the longer note. Is anyone else having this problem?)
I'm also having the same problem as you with long comments.
Thanks for letting me know it isn't my browser or some other problem on my computer.
When I post a longer comment, I am unable to click Save to send it, so what I do is I copy the comment, post a short comment (just one character is enough). And then I edit that short comment and insert the longer comment. That works for me.
"Mainstream" evolves awfully quickly with those people, though. Today's "fringe" TQ+ pet causes WILL be "mainstream" within 6 months, 1 year, AT MOST 2 years. As long as you're filtering these focus points with that in mind, then, sure.
Just as a reference point, the first time ANY federal-level Democratic Party politician here in the USA publicly brought up the notion that CHILDREN can be "transgender" was in... 2022. Almost a year and a half into Biden's term—and that was the first ever MENTION by a Dem politician at the federal level, not even touching the third rail of medicalizing children yet.
Now look how far gone the ••entire party•• at the federal level is on all that shit. Even the blue dog centrists.
"Just as a reference point, the first time ANY federal-level Democratic Party politician here in the USA publicly brought up the notion that CHILDREN can be "transgender" was in... 2022."
Not sure how to verify that, or its significance. Nor do I share the overview you seem to have of the party. Whatever facts you are speaking from, I'm not familiar with. I don't even know who is "blue dog" and who isn't.
Hockey puck, lol. Love the analogy!
A possible positive view of Chait’s piece is that he’s finally decided, like so many other pundits, that the issue is unavoidable. I think all pundits start thinking there’s plenty of room for compromise.
Ideally, if he spends any more time thinking or is yelled at for not believing a man is a biological female, he might begin to understand the issue better. He might be at the beginning of his gender journey, in other words.
I saw a meme of people on a roller coaster. The people with neat hair and unmussed clothing in the cars ascending the hill were new to gender ideology and believed compromise was possible. They were staring at people in the cars coming down the hill, who were wild eyed with hair flying and tattered clothing —they were the people who had been fighting gender ideology for awhile already.
I think of that image a lot because I feel like I’ve experienced it.
Let’s hope Chait is on his way up the roller coaster but will soon be on the way down.
Hehe, I like that appropriation of the term, "gender journey". Mine was a bumpy ride too.
Shall we change "gender journey" to "gender trippin'" ?
🤣 Love it.
😂 Meme link would be great:)
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fe823ec6d1q551.jpg&rdt=54597
This is the image but I can’t find the version labeled as I described. Maybe someone else can?
I have such a sufficiently black sense of humour that I found Chaits article quite funny because it shows how far even "moderate" democrat positions are from reality on this issue.
It's crap like this that makes me wonder if I'll even want to identify as leftwing/liberal/progressive ever again. If Transgenderism really is the logical endpoint of Liberalism, Progressivism, and The Left then it's time to admit defeat, burn the whole rotten edifice to the ground, salt the earth, and start over with something else. I just need to come up with a new name...
Identifying as progressive culturally gave rise to the Dutch protocol in the first place.
One of the reasons Mr. Chait doesn't know the actual facts on family devastation, detransition, the shockingly higher suicide rate years after "sex reassignment surgery," and Chait's ignorance of the growing ranks of trans widows, the ex-wives and trans orphans, the children of (who grieve for the loss of a father) is the reporting boundaries thrown onto news outlets through a webpage called "Trans Journalists Association Style Guide." This Orwellian document forbids reporting on the above inconvenient human beings, the collateral damage. At all times, even when this is a murderer who killed his wife (Keir Anderson, CA, serving 25 to life in the women's section) reporters are to ask him how he wants to be referenced. In fact, these crimes are not to be reported at all. When studies, such as the one on puberty blockers in teens, funded with $9.7 million by the US NIH, come up with negative results, Trans Journalists Association Style Guide says, "bury them." This is exactly what Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy did. She'll be called to testify before Congress, for sure. Chait will hopefully watch and actually listen to the content, rather than ignore the questions from Nancy Mace, that "mean transphobe" on the Congressional Oversight Committee.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYQBr_GNW1M&t=212s
Why in hell should the "Trans Journalists Ass'n Style Guide" have any say in anything? The title sounds like some bullet point document that TIMs and TIFs would use as their playbook, not inflict on the rest of the world. Orwellian indeed.
They play into the news outlets' tendencies to want accolades from HRC, GLAAD and the like for virtue signaling. This is at the expense of actual journalism.
I wonder if it's time to drop the 'trans-identified' prefix. For example, a news report might say "Suzy Trulove, a 38 year old male from Olympia, Washington, exposed his genitals in the women's restroom at the down-town WalMart." Just the facts, ma'am.
Even using the term "trans-identified male" would be a step in the right direction for the media, which now generally calls Susie a woman with no further explanation.
Some readers may think that "trans-identified male" means a FTM trans man.
(Apologies -- for several days I had MTF in the line above. I meant FTM.)
No worries. The language has become so confusing and intentionally obfuscatory that I think most people don't understand it anyway.
Yeah, this belief the individual holds about themselves just seems like a completely irrelevant piece of information most of the time. "Suzy Trulove, a 38-year-old male from Olympia, Washington whose favourite flavour of ice cream is chocolate..."
I mean, I'm sure that IS his favourite flavour of ice cream, but who cares? It has nothing to do with the story. It has no bearing on the crime he committed one way or the other.
Right, we might infer the suspect's gender identity from their adopted name or appearance in the police mugshot, but it's irrelevant to the facts of the case. The opposing argument is that behaviour which would be criminal for a 'cisgender' male is somehow acceptable, which is literal transgender privilege. Similar to the Liberty Five who argued for the right of sadists to harm masochists on the basis of consent being obtained.
Ahh but there are so many layers of rot to tear out before we can even go there.
For starters, you'd have to get rid of this 'new normal' across the entire western "free" press, in which "trans" people get their trans card summarily revoked, effective immediately, as soon as it comes to light that they've done bad things... in which case they go back to being crossdressed men (or, in the case of TIF criminals like Audrey Hale, the Nashville Covenant School shooter, mysteriously become "she/her" again).
Here's one you should bookmark and carry around with you, where both sides of this mystic divide are shamelessly written into the same story:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12223171/amp/First-responders-horrified-children-trans-drag-party-dead-body-drugs-sex-toys.html
in which
the cops found a
→ "dead trans woman" ←
in a trashed room witha bunch of junkie paraphernalia—but hiding in the next room with the 5- to 10-year-old children they were almost certainly abusing in horrifying ways, were FIVE
→ "men dressed in women's clothing" ←
oh and remember, this is the Daily Mail, which has actually been one of the TINY handful of major outlets that has consistently poked its head above the battlements and reported violent sex crimes perpetrated by TIMs that are not covered anywhere else.
At least 99 percent of the media is even worse than this.
So, you want us to believe that being trans means (or can mean) being criminal too. I already know that a lot of them go into porn, and a lot of them go into prostitution, but I was willing to believe that that was because no one else would employ them. But you are saying it is more than that.
Insofar as porn is concerned, there is apparently a significant demand for pictures of women with male genitalia. (Which I have always found ironic, because it means those trans women are admitting that they are men by putting their male genitals on display.) As far as prostitution is concerned, however, I think that most men who hire a prostitute want a real woman. If there is a market for women with male genitals, I don't think there is a way for those trans women to connect with the men who might want them.
Do you have a reason why trans women might be interested in kids? I'm gay, and I've never found pre-pubescent bodies sexually interesting.
Well for starters... using data from the UK, US and Canadian prison systems—where one can only imagine the heroic persistence needed to publish those data from under the thumb of the Biden or Trudeau administrations—TIMs ("trans women") are overrepresented by 4 to 7 times compared to the base rate of incarceration for men overall.
But, the main concern is, between 57% (UK) and 71% (Canada) of ALL the "trans women" are incarcerated for VIOLENT SEX CRIMES.
A brief perusal of 'Murderpedia' reveals a statistically relevant number of violent, mass and serial murderers as having a cross dressing fetish. Paraphilias and violence seem to go hand in hand, something that seems to have been forgotten in the last decade or so.
In the West, there is a subset of individuals who reject social assimilation and go out of their way to be transgressive, aided and abetted by activist lawyers. For them, transgender performance wouldn't be appealing unless it broke social norms, so I doubt that behaviour has anything to do with innate identity. I wrote about it in my article https://genspect.substack.com/p/gender-affirming-care-is-a-social - comments welcome.
I think that statistic makes sense. First, a lot of the male prisoners may be claiming to be trans women to get into a women's prison. (Are trans women still being incarcerated with women in those countries?) Even if they are real trans women, I suspect that if you are screwed up sexually enough to want to be the opposite gender, you might just be screwed up enough to have related sexual issues. I agree that there is a seamy side to transgenderism.
As a gay man, however, I also have to acknowledge that there is a seamy side to homosexuality, but that is for other reasons. When you have men having sex with men, the constraints that heterosexuals feel (to avoid pregnancy) are not there. Also, the ease of giving a blowjob allows gay men to have sex in public, whereas coitus usually involves lying down (or doesn't it? I'm not heterosexual, so I don't know if stand-up sex is an option for straights). Lovely topic, isn't this?
A market in the exploitation of feminised males does exist in countries where it is socially unacceptable for a man to be gay, for example Brazil or Turkey.
I think that prejudice exists throughout the Muslim or Arabian world also.
Interesting that he thinks that the problem with youth transition is the lack of a proper medical diagnosis. I wonder what he means by that. I suspect he doesn’t know what he means. You can only advocate for the “middle ground” if you don’t think too deeply about the issue.
Chait is one of those “cishet” trans allies who does not know that “trans kids” don’t exist and that most gender nonconforming youth and children with gender dysphoria will desist during adolescence and become the gay or lesbian people they were meant to be.
As for correctly diagnosing gender confused children, Chait seems not to know that the gender-affirming model eschews diagnosis in favor of “whatever the kid says goes.” Moreover, he seems unaware that trans activists and most trans allies view any effort to identify the cause of a child’s gender problems as a form of hateful transphobia.
Since the mighty Atlantic can’t be bothered to run a readers’ comments operation, readers of Chait’s piece won’t have the advantage of comments by sex realist readers to fill the gaps caused by Chait’s lack of knowledge.
Some people are so naive they really think that kids get some form of true assessment before a few are told to transition.
Proper diagnosis: I am sorry, Mrs Smith, I believe your child is terminally online.
Holy shit, Eliza! One of my favorites of yours, for sure. Especially the last line,"In other words: the ‘cause’ is 100% pernicious bullshit and the sooner the adults in the room can just say so, the better." AMEN!!!
"A lot of good progressives want to avoid the obvious conclusion here, which is that we really fucked this up. There’s no worthy cause to salvage here."
Thank you, Eliza. So well put. The paragraph that follows is essential reading.
Eliza, I really appreciate your recent writing where you “tell it like it is” and are less careful about seeming above the fray. A touch of sarcasm is absolutely appropriate and much appreciated in going as far as to describe some pro-trans “logic” as “pernicious bullshit”. Thank you.
I find it quite interesting that Chait is so clear-eyed on the harms of social media but fails to make the connection between social media and transgenderism broadly.
You may be thinking of Jonathan Haidt.
For Haidt, gender dysphoria is the one mental health trend graph he has been unwilling to show. Wants to keep broad appeal and fears transphobe accusations I guess.
Yeah, he seems reluctant to talk about it, but I suspect he understands it better than Chait. Like Jackson, I respect what is likely a strategic choice to avoid making his name mud to half the political spectrum in hopes of effecting change for more kids. Sucks that he's in that bind, but I'm hopeful that the non-trans-specific policy changes he's getting will redound to the benefit of kids affected by gender ideology.
He gave at a very brief acknowledgement of the increase in gender dysphoria in The Anxious Generation. Given his goals (which I thoroughly support) I think it's probably a good strategic play to otherwise not go there for now, but it seems pretty clear from context (referencing an interview he did with Kara Swisher earlier this year) that he understands well enough what's happening with gender and ROGD.
Good to know, thanks.
Yes I get them confused too!
Respect - no, sorry. There is no inherent "right" to respect. The best and most positive thing that anyone can do with these freaks is a hearty laugh. They don't pass. The women pretending to be men look hyper-masculine, but like midgets - 3/4 lumberjacks. The men pretending to be women look like prostitutes, and, since they can't get a normal job, they often are prostitutes. That accounts for the high rate of trannie murder - Johns who don't want a fag encounter and get testy.
I can clock either of them by their gait. Hips don't lie.
But having been around men all my life, I certainly don't understand the 5'2" women who think that being a short, fat male is going to improve their status in life.
That's the point I think, self denial, wanting to fade into the background as a bit player rather than face womanhood.
Ah, but what about the male privilege they will automatically inherit? Like being ignored. I expect the novelty of that wears off pretty quickly.
LOL, you remind me of a quote from somewhere or other: "He's the kind of guy that calls a spade a f***ing c***."
Progressives have latched onto the idea that it is kind to pretend and in the context of day to day life politeness requires that we elide the truth constantly. But it is not kind to extend our protections of this pretend life to a child's future. Ultimately it is not kind to avoid the truth. The de-trans crowd has every right to be furious with an establishment that thinks otherwise.
If you are a trans woman there are a few things that you need to understand. First of all is that you are still a man because you can't change your biological sex. It's okay to dress any way you wish and to adopt any superficial, stereotypical attributes of women that you desire. Live your life. No one should care, I certainly don't. However, because women are entitled to be treated fairly and to enjoy privacy from men there are certain things that are prohibited to you and me because we are men. You can't compete against women in most sports because it would be unfair. You can't go into women's private places like restrooms and locker rooms because that would make them feel unsafe. Finally, if you are a criminal you certainly can't be imprisoned with women.
That's it, just like me.
"Protection from discrimination in employment and housing is an easy yes. " Actually, No. Let's get back to the fundamental issue.
Obsessively believing that one is something that one is manifestly not -- whether that be a member of the opposite sex, a victim of a near-universal conspiracy, or the one true prophet of God -- is a mental disorder. Pretending otherwise, out of whatever well-meaning motivation, is the original mistake. Mandating a change in the use of words doesn't change the shape of reality, it just makes those words less useful and cripples discussion until new words are adopted to cover the original concepts.
Legally requiring everyone to pretend that something abnormal and unhealthy is actually normal and healthy is both an over-extension of government coercive powers and disruptive to social relations. Society cannot thrive without many extra-legal conventions of behavior that are spontaneously organized and enforced at the individual level, reflecting human nature, individual preferences and environmental constraints. Laws that require people to act against their self-interest invite reactions that undermine the original intent and make things worse, much like rent-control reduces housing availability. Forcing schools to hire zealous transsexual teachers incentivises parents to homeschool, leading to further decline in support for public education.
It is not necessary that everyone else in society pretend that I’m fully fungible with anyone else for me to live a decent life, with dignity. It’s probably best that I find a milieu in which I’m most compatible, that benefits from my strengths and can tolerate my faults. Working out where that is, and how much I can adapt myself in order to achieve my goals, is probably good for my personal development. There was no law prohibiting landlords from discriminating against hippies, yet they found places to live and eventually took over e.g. Berkeley. There are no laws prohibiting job discrimination against people with bad grammar or face tattoos, yet some fields employ many of them.
I should have been more clear. I don't think people should be discriminated against in housing or employment settings (unless those settings are sex-specific, e.g., women's housing, domestic-violence shelters, etc.) for holding unusual personal *beliefs* about gender.
Great piece and thank you. I am also happy to accept Burns's terms!
The trans process as I’ve observed it has no beginning and no end - trans delusion is about removing things which reinforce the perception of reality - relabel your body to pretend it’s female, disguise appearance, medical disguise, remove reminders of sex from biology, remove reminders of women in society, remove reminders of women and corrupt law, and finally remove reminders of women in language, remove or punish women directly for reminding you you’re not a woman.(women don’t exist) - but ever morning you aren’t a women, and will never be.