Jun 21, 2022·edited Jun 21, 2022Liked by Lisa Selin Davis
Thank you for being a sane voice amidst a cacophony of crazies. The traditional liberal values built into the US Constitution are based on the principle that society is best served by the free interaction of ideas. Eventually, the better ideas win out in that ecosystem of competing visions.
But when all of us get trapped inside our own political bubbles, we only hear the opinions allowed inside our own ideological gulag. The foundational principal of democracy, let the people decide, becomes a hollow mockery. Instead of reasonably debating competing ideas, we become like small yapping dogs, each cowering in our own corner, barking as loudly and vehemently as we can, while hearing nothing except the howls of outrage coming from our self-righteous pack.
Agree. I think not medicalizing kids and subverting women is the issue I'm voting on and will be the great scandal of our time, but this escalation is insane. The bar to take parenting decisions away from parents should be insanely high. Whatever bipartisan work needs to be done, let me know. I'm in.
I’m with you, Lisa. It is my dream, too, that both sides can agree to disagree in peace. However, until a child is 18, medical transition should be illegal. No matter how the child is “feeling”. Overriding parental rights is wrong. Why both sides can’t at least agree with that is beyond my comprehension! Ugh!
To answer your question on drag queen shows: I think it should be approached with the same research-informed approach 1) is there any evidence that seeing a drag queen perform or read a book translate into children being more accepting or kind to a gay or gender nonconforming classmate, family member, or community member? If not, this is not a good use of limited resources and time. 2) we already have research raising concerns about the effects of exposing children and teens to highly sexualized and looks-centered images in advertising and social media resulting in negative attitudes about body image. Do these events have the same effects?
As for the short term euphoria - it seems that needs to be balanced against the immediate risks/costs and long term effects. Xanax provides an excellent short term outcome for symptoms of anxiety. Opioids are quite effective in the short term. And is “euphoria” a good metric for determining if a treatment is successful? Many harmful street drugs produce euphoria. Mania produces euphoria. Euphoria is not sustainable
Finally, I share the concern that the swimming guidelines for stopping puberty before 12 will rush more parents into medicalization thinking it is necessary in order to give their child the most future opportunities - an unintended consequence. Is there any medical knowledge on how blockers, cross sex hormones, and a synthetic opposite-sex puberty affect the child’s ability to do sustained athletic practice? Parents may end up feeling pressured to medically transition early and then end up with children with medical issues making athletics difficult.
These days, whenever someone talks about "saving the children" or the "unborn" I'm suspicious. As Margaret Atwood relayed to Ezra Klein in a recent interview, if you want people to do your bidding enlist them in a cause greater than themselves. The natural appeal of "doing the right thing" becomes a doorway into righteousness that silences opposing viewpoints.
I am extremely disappointed in the “follow the science” party, which I used to strongly identify with (for lack of a better word — I’ll never again use that, or “transition,” or “affirmative,” or “authentic” again without shuddering). Seeing how the Biden administration is moving on this is beyond distressing. It delegitimizes every health and environmental policy they put forward and makes that bipartisan meeting of minds all the more difficult. What a difference it would have made if there had been actual, rigorous, scientific debate as a measured response to the unsustainable path we’re on. It’s not too late, but just try getting a single Democratic legislator to listen to you. Another glaring example of liberals ensuring their own losses. How deplorable (aaaand another word ruined). Maybe for many, most even, this is an issue of ignorance and laziness, and for them, simply creating a forum for the open exchange of information would result in policies that protect minors (although 18 is still way too young), but it’s hard for me to believe this is purely about polarization anymore. Too much money in this to risk anything approaching a discussion based on fact.
And for as much as I share your concern about the absurd escalation on both sides, I cannot understand why schools and libraries need to invite drag queens — highly sexualized female impersonators — to read to kids. How many other controversial figures are brought in for children? And why are the libraries and schools so vehemently defending the choice instead of backing down? Seems absurd to think this is about normalizing cross-dressing, but I’d think the last thing libraries would want is to alienate some share of patrons, especially given that at least in my county, they’re always on the ballot requesting additional funding. Maybe the program had some success, but now is not the time. Retire it, even if the liberals scream about it. Surely the library could make the case that they need to be a place that’s welcoming for all, especially in regard to programming for children.
Lisa: "We need a bipartisan coalition to draft sane and humane policies that acknowledge the reality of gender diversity but push back against restrictive ideologically-driven rules that both deny reality and compel speech and impose beliefs on all of us. We need to listen. And then we need to talk."
Amen to that.
And it seems that one of the biggest reasons for everyone talking past each other is wildly contradictory definitions for the concepts in play, "sex" and "gender" in particular. A case in point is your example of your neighbor seeing "male" and "female" as identities - and immutable ones at that - rather than as sexes which is typical of most biologists worth their salt.
But it seems that one of the most coherent ways off the horns of that dilemma is to first recognize that, in general, we are generally speaking of two quite distinct sets of traits and properties: on the one hand, biological ones related to reproduction, and, on the other hand, psychological and behavioral ones that correlate to greater or lesser extent with our reproductive abilities which, in turn, lead to various stereotypes that can be quite often more straitjackets than not - whence "gender dysphoria".
Nice summary from the BMJ of that dichotomy of traits and an endorsement of NAMING one set the sexes, and the other set genders:
"Distinction is critical for good healthcare
Sex and gender are not synonymous. Sex, unless otherwise specified, relates to biology: the gametes, chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Gender relates to societal roles, behaviours, and expectations that vary with time and place, historically and geographically. These categories describe different attributes that must be considered depending on the purpose they are intended for. The World Health Organization states, 'Gender is used to describe the characteristics of women and men that are socially constructed, while sex refers to those that are biologically determined.' …."
Though I think they're somewhat wide of the mark in thinking genders are only "socially constructed". Pink and blue baby clothes certainly qualify as such, but I rather doubt that all the characteristics that show differences between men and women so qualify. For instance, Kara Dansky in a recent interview talked about a larger prevalence of nurturing among women and a larger prevalence of violence among men. And, as I think I may have mentioned, Jordan Peterson in a recent Telegraph article talked of a larger prevalence of neuroticism among women, and a larger prevalence of rape among men. No doubt that those different levels, between men and women, of nurturing, neuroticism, violence, and rape are partly "socially constructed", but some solid scientific evidence that those levels are partly due to biology.
But that seems to be an important dichotomy and system of naming that the BMJ underlined. One which Lee Patterson of GC News also usefully emphasized, and which I elaborated on in a comment thereon:
Lee: "I think it’s fair to accept that there’s a meaningful distinction between sex and gender."
Indeed. Though the trick seems to be to get both sides to consider that as a useful starting point in separating wheat and chaff, in recognizing that current conceptions of both - among too many people - is the cause of no end of quite unnecessary grief and animosity, and not just among gender dysphoric children.
But some urgency to find a workable consensus, particularly since the dog's breakfast of contradictions is causing too many - many who should know better - to abandon the field more or less unbloodied which helps no one. But a case in point, as I had mentioned, is Substacker and philosopher Michael Robillard:
"For conservatives to achieve any sort of meaningful win in the present transgender debate, they must stop granting any further legitimacy to this Orwellian new-speak term [gender] while simultaneously seeking to aggressively remove its presence, and all its variants, from all official law, legislation, policy, and curricula."
One can, of course, sympathize with that, but a bit sad to see Robillard, of all people, sticking his head in the sand - and calling for others to do so - which precludes dealing with the issues that "gender" was, more or less, "designed" to deal with.
"imagining that each side can balance the other", that we can find some sort of a workable consensus and compromise" may well qualify as "a dream". But it certainly seems a crucially important one that's well worth pursuing. 🙂
Thank you for being a sane voice amidst a cacophony of crazies. The traditional liberal values built into the US Constitution are based on the principle that society is best served by the free interaction of ideas. Eventually, the better ideas win out in that ecosystem of competing visions.
But when all of us get trapped inside our own political bubbles, we only hear the opinions allowed inside our own ideological gulag. The foundational principal of democracy, let the people decide, becomes a hollow mockery. Instead of reasonably debating competing ideas, we become like small yapping dogs, each cowering in our own corner, barking as loudly and vehemently as we can, while hearing nothing except the howls of outrage coming from our self-righteous pack.
Agree. I think not medicalizing kids and subverting women is the issue I'm voting on and will be the great scandal of our time, but this escalation is insane. The bar to take parenting decisions away from parents should be insanely high. Whatever bipartisan work needs to be done, let me know. I'm in.
I’m with you, Lisa. It is my dream, too, that both sides can agree to disagree in peace. However, until a child is 18, medical transition should be illegal. No matter how the child is “feeling”. Overriding parental rights is wrong. Why both sides can’t at least agree with that is beyond my comprehension! Ugh!
To answer your question on drag queen shows: I think it should be approached with the same research-informed approach 1) is there any evidence that seeing a drag queen perform or read a book translate into children being more accepting or kind to a gay or gender nonconforming classmate, family member, or community member? If not, this is not a good use of limited resources and time. 2) we already have research raising concerns about the effects of exposing children and teens to highly sexualized and looks-centered images in advertising and social media resulting in negative attitudes about body image. Do these events have the same effects?
As for the short term euphoria - it seems that needs to be balanced against the immediate risks/costs and long term effects. Xanax provides an excellent short term outcome for symptoms of anxiety. Opioids are quite effective in the short term. And is “euphoria” a good metric for determining if a treatment is successful? Many harmful street drugs produce euphoria. Mania produces euphoria. Euphoria is not sustainable
Finally, I share the concern that the swimming guidelines for stopping puberty before 12 will rush more parents into medicalization thinking it is necessary in order to give their child the most future opportunities - an unintended consequence. Is there any medical knowledge on how blockers, cross sex hormones, and a synthetic opposite-sex puberty affect the child’s ability to do sustained athletic practice? Parents may end up feeling pressured to medically transition early and then end up with children with medical issues making athletics difficult.
These days, whenever someone talks about "saving the children" or the "unborn" I'm suspicious. As Margaret Atwood relayed to Ezra Klein in a recent interview, if you want people to do your bidding enlist them in a cause greater than themselves. The natural appeal of "doing the right thing" becomes a doorway into righteousness that silences opposing viewpoints.
I am extremely disappointed in the “follow the science” party, which I used to strongly identify with (for lack of a better word — I’ll never again use that, or “transition,” or “affirmative,” or “authentic” again without shuddering). Seeing how the Biden administration is moving on this is beyond distressing. It delegitimizes every health and environmental policy they put forward and makes that bipartisan meeting of minds all the more difficult. What a difference it would have made if there had been actual, rigorous, scientific debate as a measured response to the unsustainable path we’re on. It’s not too late, but just try getting a single Democratic legislator to listen to you. Another glaring example of liberals ensuring their own losses. How deplorable (aaaand another word ruined). Maybe for many, most even, this is an issue of ignorance and laziness, and for them, simply creating a forum for the open exchange of information would result in policies that protect minors (although 18 is still way too young), but it’s hard for me to believe this is purely about polarization anymore. Too much money in this to risk anything approaching a discussion based on fact.
And for as much as I share your concern about the absurd escalation on both sides, I cannot understand why schools and libraries need to invite drag queens — highly sexualized female impersonators — to read to kids. How many other controversial figures are brought in for children? And why are the libraries and schools so vehemently defending the choice instead of backing down? Seems absurd to think this is about normalizing cross-dressing, but I’d think the last thing libraries would want is to alienate some share of patrons, especially given that at least in my county, they’re always on the ballot requesting additional funding. Maybe the program had some success, but now is not the time. Retire it, even if the liberals scream about it. Surely the library could make the case that they need to be a place that’s welcoming for all, especially in regard to programming for children.
Lisa: "We need a bipartisan coalition to draft sane and humane policies that acknowledge the reality of gender diversity but push back against restrictive ideologically-driven rules that both deny reality and compel speech and impose beliefs on all of us. We need to listen. And then we need to talk."
Amen to that.
And it seems that one of the biggest reasons for everyone talking past each other is wildly contradictory definitions for the concepts in play, "sex" and "gender" in particular. A case in point is your example of your neighbor seeing "male" and "female" as identities - and immutable ones at that - rather than as sexes which is typical of most biologists worth their salt.
But it seems that one of the most coherent ways off the horns of that dilemma is to first recognize that, in general, we are generally speaking of two quite distinct sets of traits and properties: on the one hand, biological ones related to reproduction, and, on the other hand, psychological and behavioral ones that correlate to greater or lesser extent with our reproductive abilities which, in turn, lead to various stereotypes that can be quite often more straitjackets than not - whence "gender dysphoria".
Nice summary from the BMJ of that dichotomy of traits and an endorsement of NAMING one set the sexes, and the other set genders:
"Distinction is critical for good healthcare
Sex and gender are not synonymous. Sex, unless otherwise specified, relates to biology: the gametes, chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Gender relates to societal roles, behaviours, and expectations that vary with time and place, historically and geographically. These categories describe different attributes that must be considered depending on the purpose they are intended for. The World Health Organization states, 'Gender is used to describe the characteristics of women and men that are socially constructed, while sex refers to those that are biologically determined.' …."
Though I think they're somewhat wide of the mark in thinking genders are only "socially constructed". Pink and blue baby clothes certainly qualify as such, but I rather doubt that all the characteristics that show differences between men and women so qualify. For instance, Kara Dansky in a recent interview talked about a larger prevalence of nurturing among women and a larger prevalence of violence among men. And, as I think I may have mentioned, Jordan Peterson in a recent Telegraph article talked of a larger prevalence of neuroticism among women, and a larger prevalence of rape among men. No doubt that those different levels, between men and women, of nurturing, neuroticism, violence, and rape are partly "socially constructed", but some solid scientific evidence that those levels are partly due to biology.
But that seems to be an important dichotomy and system of naming that the BMJ underlined. One which Lee Patterson of GC News also usefully emphasized, and which I elaborated on in a comment thereon:
Lee: "I think it’s fair to accept that there’s a meaningful distinction between sex and gender."
https://gcnews.substack.com/p/sunday-june-19-2022/comment/7239837
Indeed. Though the trick seems to be to get both sides to consider that as a useful starting point in separating wheat and chaff, in recognizing that current conceptions of both - among too many people - is the cause of no end of quite unnecessary grief and animosity, and not just among gender dysphoric children.
But some urgency to find a workable consensus, particularly since the dog's breakfast of contradictions is causing too many - many who should know better - to abandon the field more or less unbloodied which helps no one. But a case in point, as I had mentioned, is Substacker and philosopher Michael Robillard:
"For conservatives to achieve any sort of meaningful win in the present transgender debate, they must stop granting any further legitimacy to this Orwellian new-speak term [gender] while simultaneously seeking to aggressively remove its presence, and all its variants, from all official law, legislation, policy, and curricula."
https://michaelrobillard.substack.com/p/stop-saying-gender
One can, of course, sympathize with that, but a bit sad to see Robillard, of all people, sticking his head in the sand - and calling for others to do so - which precludes dealing with the issues that "gender" was, more or less, "designed" to deal with.
"imagining that each side can balance the other", that we can find some sort of a workable consensus and compromise" may well qualify as "a dream". But it certainly seems a crucially important one that's well worth pursuing. 🙂