This is fantastic and really clarifying, thank you to you both. I loved hearing about Zander’s specific journey to transition and how it has worked out. To Zander--It was interesting to hear you say that the term “gender ideology” is so divisive. I didn’t really know that, and it is disappointing to hear. I am curious if you have read Helen Joyce’s book Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality? Her central thesis posits that what she calls “gender identity ideology” functions as a quasi-religious and faith-based frame of reality, with a belief in the “gendered soul” as being distinct from the body, similar to other dualistic beliefs. Her position in clarifying this as an ideology is powerful and really beyond sophistry or marketing, in my opinion. She is actually trying very, very hard to clarify that she is not opposed to people who identify as trans, but that she is opposed to a set of what are essentially spiritual beliefs (such as “trans women are LITERALLY women”) being encoded into laws and norms in ways that are harming some people (women and children especially). If we cannot understand that there is a passionate faith motivator driving these policy decisions such as childhood medication or putting convicted male rapists in women’s prisons, we can’t begin to challenge them. Because when people are driven by faith, they are not driven by reason. And because in our country and the rest of the West, we have an ideal of religious tolerance AND an ideal of the separation of church and state. Clearly, you don’t share this faith-based belief, because you see yourself as a transsexual who made medical decisions to lead the best life you could lead. But you are unusual in that regard and many others. You are also opposed to childhood medicalization. People like Lisa and JK Rowling and myself, who come from liberal and center left backgrounds, have used this frame of an “ideology” as a way to actually neutralize the potential demonization of people who identify as trans, whether medicalized or not. As I have tried to write about, I’m ok with this ideology existing and I’m ok with people fervently believing that humans can literally change sex. I may think it is a harmful belief, but that's the way the world is. I’m also OK with my Mormon relatives beliefs that they will get their own planet when they die. I believe in religious tolerance as a foundational principal. The only reason I have (with great reluctance and with many social costs) spoken out and written against this “ideology” is that it is being institutionalized into laws. I’d fight back against forcing kids to say the Lord’s Prayer in schools too. If you have suggestions for how to talk about this aspect of what is happening without using the term “gender ideology,” in a less “charged” way, I would appreciate hearing them.
Very glad to read Keig saying "I don't think children should be having, you know, surgeries of this type. ... By children, I mean minors. So anybody under the age of 18."
Yes, absolutely. Until we have a reliable diagnostic for distinguishing "truly trans" children (whose gender dysphoria will persist into and throughout adulthood) from children whose dysphoria will desist, drastic medical intervention should not be performed.
This is basic medical ethics: "First, do no harm."
But the medical community has sadly abandoned medical ethics in this situation, and therefore it is up to the people, and their representatives in government, to remedy it by forbidding such surgeries via legal means.
It is for this reason that, after a lifetime (I'm 67) of liberal activism, I am now voting straight Republican, and lending my modest political talents to Republican campaigns. Because, here in the US, the Republican Party is the only organized opposition to the crime against humanity of performing medically dangerous operations on children for condititons that cannot be reliably diagnosed.
I agree with jt's below comment. I think that Zander brings out a lot of good points but does not take a firm stand on parent's rights. That being said, unless one is a parent of a trans child, their opinion has a very low ranking in my book. Not trying to offend in any way, I just need to make it quite clear that a parent's rights over their children should always trump any professional's opinion. Always. The old saying holds true, "You don't really know a person until you live with them". These "professionals" and legal systems do not live with our children. They certainly have no right to withhold information or offer any sort of medical remedy and if they do, they deserve to be sued. Upshot, unless it happens to your child, I will not honor anyone's opinion as they have not walked a mile in our shoes, or our children's. Shame on society for even thinking they have this right. Respectfully, the mother of a trans daughter
I use “M” like the French do, for Monsieur but ALSO for Madam and Mademoiselle EQUALLY. That’s just me.
First of all, Thank You for this Substack, M. Lisa. I've been real glad I found it somehow. Also, I first heard-a M Zander from an article he wrote over on FAIR, long while back. And I see him all the time in their weekly bulletins.
One-a the major points Zander made, which simply can't be emphasized enough is the plague of the Post-Modernists. As You know, CRT and "Gender Ideology" and all that came outta "Critical Theory" of the 70s. Which was based on a bunch-a nihilists from the 60s. I never studied the nihilists, but Foucault and Derrida are a couple who started all-a this crap. So, yeah. People are coming from two irreconcilable viewpoints, to a large extent. Or, rather, I don't wanna say "irreconcilable" because I'm sure Zander can find a way to reconcile them. But it will be difficult, and I just hope the world doesn't go the Way of the Post-Modernists, but they hold a lotta the power these days.
I certainly don't mean to offend. Just one person's experience. I can see, now, why the term "mutilated" is so charged. But I've only seen it when referencing children, myself. And I think the reason terms like that are used is because the TRAs (Trans Rights Activists) use such euphemisms and other word-games to persuade people they're being real reasonable.
One question that Zander didn't around to: Lisa asked if the more moderate trans majority, like You Zander, have a responsibility to stand up and shout down the TRAs. She didn't put it like that, and mebbe that's going too far. Dunno. But the main reason this craziness is even getting a hearing is because the majority of people are fearful. I forget... Study said some 60% or more of the people in this country are afraid to express their viewpoints. Because, up until now, there can be some drastic consequences of doing so. Up to losing Your livelihood. The only reason I don't worry about it is because I'm retired. If I was workin I dunno exactly *what* I'd say and do.
I dunno if either of You heard-a "Billboard Chris" who goes out in public with a billboard that says (I think it was) "Children cannot give informed consent." He's not confrontational about it. Just talks to people. But that didn't save him from getting a broken arm for his troubles. Sorry, this has probably gone on too long.
All that to say... When You got the APA and just about every other org in favor of catering to "the marginalized" like the Trans lobby, then the only thing I can see to turn this around (besides slowly working through the courts, like You all say) is for the majority opinion to be given a fair hearing.
Finally (do I hear applause? ;-), just wanted to thank both-a You again. TYTY, and looking forward to more in the future. Best wishes to both.
That was very interesting and I appreciated the challenge of not listening to an echo chamber though in the end I agree with your guests conclusions. I certainly have said mutilated but I’ve also used that for year in regards to my anti circumcision stance. It’s usually when I’m heated.
A big ahah was hearing how cruelly he was treated as a masculine woman. That is shameful for our society. I would like us all to present any way we feel without surgery and without being beat.
Thanks for the great conversation. Lots of wonderful insights here. I was particularly interested in the discussion on word choice, eg, gender-affirming as euphemistic, mutilation as too harsh the other way, and ending on bilateral mastectomy (factual and neutral). As someone who had the Hobson’s choice of dying of breast cancer v. Bilateral mastectomy (hopefully for many today there are less drastic choices), I do have, ironically, a problem with the neutral term. While I appreciate where Keig is coming from, there’s a complexity to this that I want to point out. To have to have a bilateral mastectomy in order to avoid dying was a terrible choice. It was not staying over in the hospital, or even undergoing the surgery (which is not that tough for most of us), but rather having to mutilate my body to stay alive. As a friend who had to do the same because of cancer said at the time--if we were men, they would come up with something less horrible than this kind of mutilation. So, for me, the neutral term doesn’t get at what the experience is like. Over time, I have of course learned to live with it, but I really don’t want anyone to think this kind of choice was just fine, and mutilation helps convey that. The other aspect of this that I’d note is breast reconstruction is no panacea. First, the way these surgeries were conducted at the time, the basic breast removal offered no pretense of cosmetic look, even flat-chested. Instead, you were set up to either go with crude scars or undergo often several cosmetic operations to end up with fake breasts without sensation and also potentially problems with silicon implants. I had a friend with advanced cancer who went through this, because she couldn’t bear looking unwomanly. Several surgeries later, she had new fake breasts, and shortly afterward, she died. I feel sad and angry for Keig that societal norms made it untenable for Keig to present as a woman safely, but what I would wish for all of us is that bodily mutilation was not seen as the only way to address this. Let’s change the world, not our bodies.
This is fantastic and really clarifying, thank you to you both. I loved hearing about Zander’s specific journey to transition and how it has worked out. To Zander--It was interesting to hear you say that the term “gender ideology” is so divisive. I didn’t really know that, and it is disappointing to hear. I am curious if you have read Helen Joyce’s book Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality? Her central thesis posits that what she calls “gender identity ideology” functions as a quasi-religious and faith-based frame of reality, with a belief in the “gendered soul” as being distinct from the body, similar to other dualistic beliefs. Her position in clarifying this as an ideology is powerful and really beyond sophistry or marketing, in my opinion. She is actually trying very, very hard to clarify that she is not opposed to people who identify as trans, but that she is opposed to a set of what are essentially spiritual beliefs (such as “trans women are LITERALLY women”) being encoded into laws and norms in ways that are harming some people (women and children especially). If we cannot understand that there is a passionate faith motivator driving these policy decisions such as childhood medication or putting convicted male rapists in women’s prisons, we can’t begin to challenge them. Because when people are driven by faith, they are not driven by reason. And because in our country and the rest of the West, we have an ideal of religious tolerance AND an ideal of the separation of church and state. Clearly, you don’t share this faith-based belief, because you see yourself as a transsexual who made medical decisions to lead the best life you could lead. But you are unusual in that regard and many others. You are also opposed to childhood medicalization. People like Lisa and JK Rowling and myself, who come from liberal and center left backgrounds, have used this frame of an “ideology” as a way to actually neutralize the potential demonization of people who identify as trans, whether medicalized or not. As I have tried to write about, I’m ok with this ideology existing and I’m ok with people fervently believing that humans can literally change sex. I may think it is a harmful belief, but that's the way the world is. I’m also OK with my Mormon relatives beliefs that they will get their own planet when they die. I believe in religious tolerance as a foundational principal. The only reason I have (with great reluctance and with many social costs) spoken out and written against this “ideology” is that it is being institutionalized into laws. I’d fight back against forcing kids to say the Lord’s Prayer in schools too. If you have suggestions for how to talk about this aspect of what is happening without using the term “gender ideology,” in a less “charged” way, I would appreciate hearing them.
Very glad to read Keig saying "I don't think children should be having, you know, surgeries of this type. ... By children, I mean minors. So anybody under the age of 18."
Yes, absolutely. Until we have a reliable diagnostic for distinguishing "truly trans" children (whose gender dysphoria will persist into and throughout adulthood) from children whose dysphoria will desist, drastic medical intervention should not be performed.
This is basic medical ethics: "First, do no harm."
But the medical community has sadly abandoned medical ethics in this situation, and therefore it is up to the people, and their representatives in government, to remedy it by forbidding such surgeries via legal means.
It is for this reason that, after a lifetime (I'm 67) of liberal activism, I am now voting straight Republican, and lending my modest political talents to Republican campaigns. Because, here in the US, the Republican Party is the only organized opposition to the crime against humanity of performing medically dangerous operations on children for condititons that cannot be reliably diagnosed.
I agree with jt's below comment. I think that Zander brings out a lot of good points but does not take a firm stand on parent's rights. That being said, unless one is a parent of a trans child, their opinion has a very low ranking in my book. Not trying to offend in any way, I just need to make it quite clear that a parent's rights over their children should always trump any professional's opinion. Always. The old saying holds true, "You don't really know a person until you live with them". These "professionals" and legal systems do not live with our children. They certainly have no right to withhold information or offer any sort of medical remedy and if they do, they deserve to be sued. Upshot, unless it happens to your child, I will not honor anyone's opinion as they have not walked a mile in our shoes, or our children's. Shame on society for even thinking they have this right. Respectfully, the mother of a trans daughter
I use “M” like the French do, for Monsieur but ALSO for Madam and Mademoiselle EQUALLY. That’s just me.
First of all, Thank You for this Substack, M. Lisa. I've been real glad I found it somehow. Also, I first heard-a M Zander from an article he wrote over on FAIR, long while back. And I see him all the time in their weekly bulletins.
One-a the major points Zander made, which simply can't be emphasized enough is the plague of the Post-Modernists. As You know, CRT and "Gender Ideology" and all that came outta "Critical Theory" of the 70s. Which was based on a bunch-a nihilists from the 60s. I never studied the nihilists, but Foucault and Derrida are a couple who started all-a this crap. So, yeah. People are coming from two irreconcilable viewpoints, to a large extent. Or, rather, I don't wanna say "irreconcilable" because I'm sure Zander can find a way to reconcile them. But it will be difficult, and I just hope the world doesn't go the Way of the Post-Modernists, but they hold a lotta the power these days.
I certainly don't mean to offend. Just one person's experience. I can see, now, why the term "mutilated" is so charged. But I've only seen it when referencing children, myself. And I think the reason terms like that are used is because the TRAs (Trans Rights Activists) use such euphemisms and other word-games to persuade people they're being real reasonable.
One question that Zander didn't around to: Lisa asked if the more moderate trans majority, like You Zander, have a responsibility to stand up and shout down the TRAs. She didn't put it like that, and mebbe that's going too far. Dunno. But the main reason this craziness is even getting a hearing is because the majority of people are fearful. I forget... Study said some 60% or more of the people in this country are afraid to express their viewpoints. Because, up until now, there can be some drastic consequences of doing so. Up to losing Your livelihood. The only reason I don't worry about it is because I'm retired. If I was workin I dunno exactly *what* I'd say and do.
I dunno if either of You heard-a "Billboard Chris" who goes out in public with a billboard that says (I think it was) "Children cannot give informed consent." He's not confrontational about it. Just talks to people. But that didn't save him from getting a broken arm for his troubles. Sorry, this has probably gone on too long.
All that to say... When You got the APA and just about every other org in favor of catering to "the marginalized" like the Trans lobby, then the only thing I can see to turn this around (besides slowly working through the courts, like You all say) is for the majority opinion to be given a fair hearing.
Finally (do I hear applause? ;-), just wanted to thank both-a You again. TYTY, and looking forward to more in the future. Best wishes to both.
That was very interesting and I appreciated the challenge of not listening to an echo chamber though in the end I agree with your guests conclusions. I certainly have said mutilated but I’ve also used that for year in regards to my anti circumcision stance. It’s usually when I’m heated.
A big ahah was hearing how cruelly he was treated as a masculine woman. That is shameful for our society. I would like us all to present any way we feel without surgery and without being beat.
Thank you, Lisa, for sharing diverse viewpoints.I look forward to reading people's comments and engaging with them.
Thank you Lisa and Zander for this thoughtful discussion.
Thanks for the great conversation. Lots of wonderful insights here. I was particularly interested in the discussion on word choice, eg, gender-affirming as euphemistic, mutilation as too harsh the other way, and ending on bilateral mastectomy (factual and neutral). As someone who had the Hobson’s choice of dying of breast cancer v. Bilateral mastectomy (hopefully for many today there are less drastic choices), I do have, ironically, a problem with the neutral term. While I appreciate where Keig is coming from, there’s a complexity to this that I want to point out. To have to have a bilateral mastectomy in order to avoid dying was a terrible choice. It was not staying over in the hospital, or even undergoing the surgery (which is not that tough for most of us), but rather having to mutilate my body to stay alive. As a friend who had to do the same because of cancer said at the time--if we were men, they would come up with something less horrible than this kind of mutilation. So, for me, the neutral term doesn’t get at what the experience is like. Over time, I have of course learned to live with it, but I really don’t want anyone to think this kind of choice was just fine, and mutilation helps convey that. The other aspect of this that I’d note is breast reconstruction is no panacea. First, the way these surgeries were conducted at the time, the basic breast removal offered no pretense of cosmetic look, even flat-chested. Instead, you were set up to either go with crude scars or undergo often several cosmetic operations to end up with fake breasts without sensation and also potentially problems with silicon implants. I had a friend with advanced cancer who went through this, because she couldn’t bear looking unwomanly. Several surgeries later, she had new fake breasts, and shortly afterward, she died. I feel sad and angry for Keig that societal norms made it untenable for Keig to present as a woman safely, but what I would wish for all of us is that bodily mutilation was not seen as the only way to address this. Let’s change the world, not our bodies.
So thankful for Zander’s voice as a fellow rebellious LCSW :)