What drives online mob campaigns, and what does this new Gallup survey of the U.S. LGBT population highlight that merits further examination and investigation?
I find the whole trans movement fascinating for a variety of reasons. As a gay person I do have some sympathy for transgenders, and as a strong believer of civil rights and free will, I support anyone's decision to live the life as the opposite gender if that is what makes them happy. And, as a gay person, I also know that there are many gays and lesbians who resent the notion of being lumped with transgenders in that ever exploding alphabet list that marks the modern LGBtA+ movement.
But at the same time I find it strange we can't have a frank and realistic discussion about transgenderism and all the implications that come with it (women's sports being an obvious one). And I am concerned that the hardcore activists refuse to accept the basic biological difference between women and trans women, and their insistence that trans women are real women when they biologically are not and cannot ever be and will never experience the whole range of biological experiences and body experiences only women can (which is also true for trans men, but I do notice that most cases it's transwomen rather than transmen that is causing most of the furore).
And I do also see a clear difference between genuine transexuals and a growing number of people, particularly younger people at certain ages, who seem to seek transgenderism as an escape mechanism for emotional or real life problems rather than a sincere belief in their own transgenderism. This is a topic that clearly merits exploration but whenever researchers or scientists try to, they're accused of transphobia and funding cancelled, and the drawbridge pulled up (or door slammed closed).
What is it about transgenderism that has turned its advocates to totalitarianists? I'm not quite sure what or why. But it is fascinating.
What is bothersome about this is that the trans-affirming group has full license to rush in and support anyone's decision to declare being of the opposite sex, and to viciously crush all discussion and sober analysis. The other group is instantly labeled some kind of monster with no valid points to make. When the subject is a child, the cautious parent is no longer deemed to have the child's best interest at heart and is labeled the abuser, while the trans-affirmers are the child's liberators. What civilization can withstand such an open assault on the parent-child bond.
I see much of it as essentially a religion, and one that is resistant to reason. It is perfectly reasonable to question trans competing in women's sports. Biology matters. The reaction to raising this issue had much in common with religious zealotry.
Yes, it's a moral community. This is the creepy part. There is explicit competition to be the most oppressed. Before learning about critical theory it's just confusing. Once you see the activist's game for what it is --- it's a dialectic not a conversation --- it becomes unhinged for reality. Aaaaaaand elites have fully weaponized this to attack the people who claim their subjective experience is more worthy being *revered* (to borrow a term Glenn used to use all the time ;) ) I had a feeling I wouldn't agree with Glenn just didn't realize how much! I'm curious how much he knows about critical social justice since it's something we all need to be aware of nowadays.
It is fascinating to see what happens in a schema where victimization and weakness proportionally bestow power and strength. It shows how dependent the latter are on societal norms.
I'd argue we have broken the scales of empathy vs. indifference. Too much indifference, and we callous our hearts to the genuine suffering of the helpless and beleaguered. Too much empathy, and we incentivize a mad quest for pity and perceived pariahdom at all costs
With identity politics the more you can identify with a marginalized group the more social currency you earn. This can explain a lot of today’s youth identifying as transgendered along with the mass hysteria among young women to transition which has been fueled by social media. So tragic.
Im very curious how they will pivot since their hierarchies are based on what I call the "quantum hot potato of power": make sure you're not caught holding it when everyone is looking and you can wield all the power you want with total impunity.
So if people start to see a world where straight white guys are a minority group being actively discriminated against by affirmative action and outperformed in many places like by women in academia and several Asian groups economically, what do they do? If straight white men end up being underrepresented by population in certain areas do they fight for equity? Do they force an elementary school with disproportionately high number of minority female teachers to hire less qualified white males? Do they force they bench LeBron so some lesser white player can get some minutes? Conversely, do they force women into trucking or mining jobs where they are woefully underrepresented?
Ha! Thank you; you're too kind. The Scales of Empathy is one of a few ideas I've been kicking around developing into an actual book, so if it ever happens I will send you a copy! : )
Thank you. I have just recently heard of this Youtube channel and have been meaning to check it out. I've heard that the "backfire effect" makes it incredibly hard for people to admit they were wrong or believed something that wasn't true. It certainly takes require emotional / psychological maturity.
Preferably biological. Children’s rights are totally ignored from the moment they are conceived. People innately want to know their biological parents and that they aren’t a commodity.
Its NOT just the trans people that have gone nuts. There is not a single group that has ever been oppressed or felt it had been oppressed that is not prepared to nail a white man to a wall just on principle and cancel and harass any non white male that blasphemes.
These people are religious zealots to a new faith. Heretics will be burned or crushed beneath stones until they admit their sins and even then they are still sentenced to death.
Originally Marxism was meant to use the divide and conquer methodology to put people in the oppressor-oppressed boxes along socio economic lines (rich vs poor). This divide and conquer method has been used for centuries as a way to rule people because people would keep in fighting instead of focusing on the real enemy - the politicians. However a few decades ago, they figured out that they could expand this methodology along other categories too. That’s when the identity politics was born- race, sex, sexual orientation, sexual preference etc all started getting used for oppressor-oppressed dividing and conquering.
Yes same thing. The US doesn’t have a class system so they had to come up with something else that’s divisive and chosen identity that you are born with - race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, skin color, etc..
Identity politics social justice is a cult that replaces religion and makes the followers feel they are doing something food with their lives. They are delusional and brainwashed.
Transgenderism is postmodern. Truth is subjective, whatever you want it to be. Denying that there are two sexes makes biology subjective. This is ridiculous.
The fact that transgenderism is clustering among school kids suggests to me that it is a new fad to make one feel special, to seek attention.
I think Douglas Murray is right. Society has not had enough time to examine whether transgenderism is a real biological thing or a psychopathology. Peoples’ rush to accept it as real is virtue signaling.
Would you agree with a painfully thin person who looks at her body and insists she is fat and needs to lose weight? Or would you urge this person suffering of a body image disorder, anorexia nervosa, to seek psychological help?
That pre-pubertal kids are being given hormones is child abuse. Advocates of this practice should be stopped and punished.
"Society has not had enough time to examine whether transgenderism is a real biological thing or a psychopathology." Nonsense. It's as old as the hills -- like gay marriage.
That's why it shouldn't be studied as a possible "psychopathology," but as a societal phenomenon. Like you say (I think you are saying it), individuals have always bucked societal norms if they felt like it (and thought about it, too, not just "felt"), and as long as they aren't using force, shouldn't the individual be free to do so, even in the extreme case of the majority considering it a "pathology."
Agreed, it’s a fascinating phenomenon. NOTHING gets you smeared, labeled and canceled faster than, not even necessarily disagreeing, but merely ASKING A QUESTION about this. TERF! Everybody under the sun is a TERF. It’s the weirdest kind of “activism” I’ve ever witnessed, and I too am a gay man (who grew up in the 1970/80s). Can you imagine gays and lesbians fighting for equal rights from the 1960s onward just walking around all day screaming “homophobe” at anyone they didn’t like a 100% and shouting them down and demanding they be silenced?! I find it so bizarre. I must be getting old, I guess.
Thank you for your reply. It helps me understand some of the furor going on about sexuality. My major concern has been the effect on young people who are encouraged to make a life changing choice that they should not make until much older IMHO. y
I was recently dumped, as a friend, by a lifelong friend who decided to come out after he entered the national guard in the Vietnam era. I had always valued his friendship, but when he discovered I was a hardcore Trump supporter he discarded our friendship in an uncordial manner. I am straight and have always been conservative. He has moved to the political extreme now. I see both sides hardening their positions. The moderates seem to be taking sides and many still just riding the fence to avoid losing friends.
You should ask your friend if he would have been happy if trump had fired Richard Grennell for being gay instead of making him the most adored Director of National Intelligence by his followers. And guess what- mitt Romney, the democrat adored RINO in fact did fire Grenell in 2012 from his campaign for being gay.
Grenell acted like a true "exceptional American" while ambassador in Germany pissing Germans off mightily. You might even say he contributed to Trump looking bad in Europe - unless Trump really intended him to. Really obnoxious, cowboy-like attitude reinforcing the stereotypical American image there. Whatever he is personally his act there was asshole-like.
Check out Grenell’s side of view point which he talks about on Dave Rubin’s show earlier last year. He talks about Germany specifically. He says because of Germany’s past history, they pretty much offer no support to lots of things including NATO wise. That’s why Grenell wasn’t liked by them. He also hates the UN which is another reason they don’t like him. Imo that’s not his fault, that’s Germany’s fault. I have my own issues with Grenell because he and Mike Pence played a crucial role in getting Assange arrested from the Ecuador embassy.
Here’s the Dave Rubin interview if you are interested:
Of course he's going to defend his record as every politician and state employee does.
But I'm not defending Germany. It, as any other European country, is a staunch US bitch. Their elites have been corrupted and made subservient to the US, and their media is a sewer on par with the US's for those same reasons. And yes, they do have a past. Every country does, and the USA itself is no exception. Does it mean that, say, a German ambassador can boss the US around as to what it must do on its own soil or according to its own interests?
This short article lists just a few of things Grenell was pursuing.
"There were even occasional requests from the opposition to declare him an “undesirable person” and thus to expel him, as it were. Bundestag Vice President Wolfgang Kubicki (FDP) said the ambassador behaved "as if the United States was still an occupying power here"."
As for NATO - is Germany forcing the US to keep its military there? On the contrary, the US needs them there for their own purposes first and foremost. Here's some info:
But of course the US wants to justify the presence as "protection" of Europe from somebody (read Russia) and so Europe has to pay up. Whereas they could just pick up and go. But then they would lose their influence in Europe.
I hadn't heard that (my fault), so thanks, I'll check it out. I reserve the right to be of the opinion that sometimes "cowboy-like" attitude is appropriate, but "asshole-like" is never, and I don't think it's usually appropriate to piss off too many Germans (or anybody, really, in the realm of ambassodry), but maybe Grenell and DJT were trying to get the Germans to get so mad that THEY kick out the thousands of American soldiers STILL guarding that wall Reagan, I mean the godly Gorbachev, i mean those wonderful Germans, tore down 30 some years ago. Are the planes still dropping supplies into Berlin? Watch out for those Soviet ground to airs!!
Check out Grenell’s side of view point which he talks about on Dave Rubin’s show earlier last year. He talks about Germany specifically. He says because of Germany’s past history, they pretty much offer no support to lots of things including NATO wise. That’s why Grenell wasn’t liked by them. He also hates the UN which is another reason they don’t like him. Imo that’s not his fault, that’s Germany’s fault. I have my own issues with Grenell because he and Mike Pence played a crucial role in getting Assange arrested from the Ecuador embassy.
Here’s the Dave Rubin interview if you are interested:
DJT was bringing those troops home, not Joe and 81,000,000 American voters, apparently. Does that piss off germans, too, or do they still enjoy the (U.S. military's) tourism $$$$$s?
If I remember right, he had previously commented how he can’t take too heavy jobs because his cancer might come back and busy jobs prevent him from getting his medical procedures done. That was why he asked trump to only give him a 4 month position and not longer.
Years ago I dumped a couple of friends for being hard core Obama supporters. Talking to them was like talking to a scientologist...there was just too much adoration and zero rationality. I swear they were probably lighting candles every night in their Barack shrine.
Get back in touch with them, apologize for "dumping" them, and see if they have changed their mind: I swear, I think lots of people are changing their minds about "Zeit gheist" (sp?) type issues.
I had a friend who called me a race traitor for being more right leaning on things (I am brown and he’s black). I helped this friend several times previously including things like fixing his computer preventing him from losing all his work (no backups). I sometimes wonder if I should contact him again but I am reluctant because I can’t stand someone who would call me a race traitor.
Right, and so if those who did the wrong thing contact you you definitely respond and help and all that. They might have changed, or maybe even not, but they need help and as long as it's not blatant exploitation then it's fine. But I wouldn't (and don't) do that first if I truly did nothing wrong.
I doubt it. Worshipping Obama is tied to their belief that to criticize Obama is racist. They are too cowardly, self-righteous and programmed to fairly criticize Obama.
Rogan thinks that anyone who speaks eloquently is president material.... even if they bombed the brown kids in Middle East. He hasn’t learnt his lessons from leaving California where the similar eloquent speaking governor is destroying the state.
So true. That’s the typical politician before Trump. Smooth talking liars. That’s what the masss had been programmed to expect. The truth enraged them - cognitive dissonance was overwhelming.
I'm with you on all of the above. Wanting to have a discussion instead of agreeing hook line & sinker with their ideology gets you labeled a terf or a bigot. I follow numerous trans individuals online who are very matter of fact about the reality of their biolog, want to protect children from early medicalization, and are also concerned about women's rights. They also express concern that the radical transactivists will trigger a backlash.
Those who feed on young kids, reenforcing their temporary gender confusion, encouraging them to take hormones, are truly scum of the earth. The damage they inflict on the kids and the guilt they impose on their parents is criminal.
Thanks for mentioning the guilt on parents. I think most (vast majority) of hetero parents today spend huge amounts of time worrying about helping their possibly gay children to find happiness AND fairness. Same thing really for the straight kids before they know they are straight. (Especially sons, sorry Moms, just thinking back how hard it was for this boy nerd, who knew he hetero from early on.)
But that’s because it looked at from the perspective of the parents not the children who are turned in to a commodity and separated from their biological parents and biological family.
For one major reason: they don’t want, as Glenn said, ANY questioning or criticisms. You either 100% support their agenda or you are the enemy.
Even just the suggestion that a certain percent of teenage girls appear to be making rash and permanent decisions about their bodies chemically and surgically when in actuality “some” are going along to get along with a clique they want to be part of or pressure from certain peer groups they think are “cool”. Just BEING a normal teenage boy or girl is practically schizophrenic at times anyway!
A young person can someday have an idiotic tattoo removed, but reversing the hormones and having breasts and reproductive organs changed is another story.
Which is probably why there should be a standardized age of consent agreed on by society where a child must turn 18 to make body changes that are life-altering.
That is a statistic I would like to see: How many teens who came to believe they wanted to transition to another sex “grew out of that phase” in time and are happy they waited?
The problem with that would be that 18 is later than people prefer to start, if they really are certain they want to transition. Some of the body changes that have happened by that point are also irreversible.
There used to be a "gatekeeper" system whereby in order to start transitioning medically, you had to convince a doctor that you were serious. That system has been abandoned for obvious good reasons; clearly the final decision should rest with the individual. But nothing else has emerged to play the role of getting vulnerable, anguished teens to stop and think carefully before proceeding.
Boys an take birth control pills around 12 years old. If they change their minds all they have to do is stop taking the birth control pills and the will masculinize.
Girls can not do that. The effects of taking testosterone is irreversible. Girls must wait to see if they grow out of their feelings of gender dysmorphia.
Considering that I've seen some convincing transsexuals who relied on surfaces alone - clothing, hair, mannerisms - I think your claim is unconvincing.
And even if you're right, what about those who make a mistake? Why would we think 14 year olds actually kno wwho they are? Discovering that is a feature of adolescence.
Have you seen the Dave Chappelle car full of LGBTQA+ people? I found it absolutely hilarious and sadly nailed a lot of stereotypes that some of my trans/gay friends have.
He points out how it was OK for him to say the N word but not the F word.
It's hard for us cisgender folks to imagine what it's like to grow up and realize you're in the wrong kind of body. I do try to imagine, and I've read some autobiographical accounts (notably that by Lynn Conway -- highly recommended, and easily found online). But clearly, it is excruciatingly painful.
First there's simply the pain of feeling that something is terribly wrong, that you're different from everyone else in some way that you probably can't conceptualize, never mind express, at first. But that's just the beginning. Once you do start to express it, you get a tremendous amount of pushback from those close to you -- starting with your parents, unless you're very lucky. People have come to know you and think of you and relate to you as one gender, and now you tell them that you're really the other; they're just naturally going to resist that. Indeed, it would take a tremendous effort of will for them not to do so. Most of them probably won't make that effort.
People who come out as gay have certainly experienced the same kind of pressures and rejections, but I suspect that on average, it's quite a bit worse for transgenders. So much of how we view and respond to one another interpersonally has to do with gender -- it's so deeply embedded and largely subconscious. Yes, that's also true of sexuality, but not all of our relationships are sexual, while they are pretty much all affected by gender.
So just imagine, if you will, typical responses of family members to a young girl or teen declaring they're really a boy, or conversely. Those family members are going to have to grieve the loss of the girl or boy they knew; and the stages of grief start with denial, anger, and bargaining, right? And so what these kids hear back is things like "it's just a stage", "you don't really mean it", or even an outright refusal to allow them to even socially transition even as an experiment.
And I suspect that even parents who make a real effort to react well have some trouble with it. I recall a piece somewhere about a trans woman whose son declared that he was actually a trans girl, and even she had to swallow hard because she knew what a tough row to hoe it was going to be!
The point of all this is that I do get, to some extent, why trans activists want everyone to be as supportive as possible and don't want anything expressed that could possibly add to the difficulty and pain of legitimately trans children and teens. They don't want those parents, going through their stages of grief, to have any false hopes on the one hand, or weapons to use against the child on the other.
And yet we do know that some significant fraction of children and teens who explore transitioning eventually change their minds. Getting good numbers is very difficult; I don't think we have any. But it does seem to be more than a rare occurrence; for younger kids, I've seen estimates as high as 2/3, if memory serves. I think the movement needs to come to grips with that fact.
The advice I would offer parents is to try to let your potentially-trans child explore who they are, without pressure either not to transition, or to finish transitioning once they've started. I know it's difficult not to be invested in either outcome; but if you truly love them, that's the best thing you can do for them.
As I commented earlier, anorexia nervosa is a body image dysphoria. A painfully thin girl sees herself as fat and insists she must starve herself more. No parent would stand by and let her “explore” that. It needs to be considered that trans might be psychological, not biological. If trans is appearing in clusters of school kids, it suggests a psychological origin. Rather than playing along, I think we need to figure out how to help gender confused people psychologically. The rush to provide hormones and surgery is so inappropriate.
Agreed, but it's not an easy problem to fix. If a pre-pubescent child decides they're trans, they have some time; they can try on a different gender identity for a couple of years to see how it feels. But once puberty starts to kick in, the clock is ticking: their body is undergoing irreversible hormone-driven changes. I don't know how often it happens that true transgenders don't realize it until puberty, but I've read that it does happen. (Perhaps the frequency is being exaggerated by activists. We need more data.) So the need to persuade vulnerable, anguished teens to slow down and be certain has to be balanced against the need to get true transgenders started on hormones, at least, reasonably quickly -- knowing that we won't always be able to tell which are the true ones.
All the boys have to do is take a birth control pill around the age of 12. The girls have to wait until they are adults before they take any hormones or undergone gender reassignment surgery because the effects of girls taking testosterone are irreversible. Boys taking birth control pills is reversible and will delay the onset of puberty and masculinization. Boys should not have surgery done to their genitals at all or wait till they are adults to decide.
Those might be reasonable recommendations, but I don't think I could support a law to that effect, if that's what you're suggesting. Individual situations vary; if a child socially transitions at 7, let's say, and shows no sign of changing their mind, I don't see why they shouldn't start to transition medically at puberty, or whenever medical considerations dictate. Those kids aren't the ones having a problem.
I could see, perhaps, requiring a waiting period of maybe six months between when someone under 18 asks to start medically transitioning and the time they can actually start. Such a rule would leave the decision in their hands, but force them to take some time to think it over.
I think much depends on what sort of transition. Clothing, hair styles, mannerisms are one thing, because they're reversible. They're a good way to try out a new role. But hormone therapy and, especially, surgery are not fully reversible. I think they should wait at least until a young person is past the age of consent - for one thing, not doing so makes a nonsense of that concept. People have a right to be who they are and to self-determine - once they're old enough to know who that is. Children don't, and sometimes go through radical transformations. Not always, but often enough to be a big factor.
The alarming thing is that apparently nuance - or the slightest questioning of the latest dogma - is not allowed.
Clothing, hairstyle and mannerisms have NOTHING TO DO WITH GENDER OR BIOLOGICAL SEX. They are personal preferences, usually learned, not innate. Nobody is born with a brain wired to wear a dress or pants. In some countries/religious sects - there is no choice in what to wear. In some tribes there is no clothing. Firm handshakes are learned, not innate. The ability to throw a ball is learned, not innate. Some have better muscle development and eye-hand coordination, but without learning and practice, one doesn't get better. This is all so effing stupid.
"What is it about transgenderism that has turned its advocates to totalitarianists?" As someone who's been around transwomen off and on for 40 years, I can verify that "totalitarianism" is baked in. Aggressive and narcissistic transwomen are the norm, not the exception. The difference now is that these people are being given power by those who seek to divide the country and sap its energy on garbage disputes.
Perhaps unknowingly, you answered your own question by pointing out that the furor is mainly from trans women. Perhaps it's the residual effect of years of "pre-trans" testosterone.
Here's my view on the "trans debate" as a "classical liberal":
Reasonable people don't care how anyone chooses to identify. As far as I'm concerned, everyone should be free to identify as a man, woman, non-binary or a turnip. The problems start when people try to force their views on others. You can identify however you want, but you have zero right to force me to accept or acknowledge your beliefs. Your subjective "lived experience" means nothing to me. We all have lived experiences - its called life.
The problem with the whole "trans movement" is that by its very nature it attracts the most mentally disturbed, confused and identity-obsessed people, from a pool of already mentally disturbed, confused and identify obsessed "crt" cultists, to its banner. The worst of the worst. These people aren't interested in living their own lives with their own identities, free from molestation. They are mentally damaged people who are obsessed with having their bizarre beliefs validated and respected by everyone. Nobody is owed or entitled to validation or respect. Respect is earned, and the way these people behave does the opposite of earn respect. They are cultists who lash out blindly and viciously at anyone who doesn't uncritically accept their dogma.
And that's the crux of Glenn's heresy and why he is absurdly being painted as "transphobic". He asked a question about the results of a poll. In doing so, he attempted to inject some objective reality into the "debate", and there is no greater crime to these people. Nothing strikes at the heart of faith-based belief like the injection of objective reality and critical thinking, no matter how innocently or unobtrusively it is done.
Yes, the sith lords of social media take any sort of non-compliance as opposition. If you are not 100% in support of everything some of them post, you are some sort of redneck who needs re-programming.
Tolerance used to be something liberals preached. Now it is used to club people into submission through the mob of social media.
You are wrong. In honor of Rush Limbaugh, who is no longer around to do so himself, I would gladly tell you exactly what "ditto" means to the Rush Limbaugh audience. I don't think you've ever heard this truth.
Another issue is having taxpayers finance any chemical or surgical treatments for someone to physically be changed. I don’t see these physical transitions as “medically necessary”.
I think psychological counseling or psychiatry should be covered but the rest should be financed personally or through a GoFundMe page.
If I want to see a plastic surgeon for a facelift or breast enhancement or a tummy tuck to wipe 20 years off my appearance, who cares? But I have to shell out the money personally because it is not a medical necessity. It’s a mental problem I have with aging. I can fix it with a surgeon or get therapy. And the cost will be born by me.
I have read where taxpayers are footing medical/surgical bills for prisoners who “need” to make the changes.
Here is another question: if a poll were done with the Boomer generation, how would the same questions from the Gallup survey come out? How have Boomers dealt with these issues from the 1950’s until now?
Certainly that's an important issue, and I agree that elective surgery should not be covered or subsidized by taxpayers.
The other important issue, as pointed out by Glenn in his video, is their treatment of children. As an adult, you should be free to identify as anything you want and all people should have the same legal rights regardless of how they identify. This is not a license for child abuse. Permanent, life-altering medical procedures for children be outlawed. Anyone who thinks a child has the sophistication to make a decision about permanent, life-altering elective surgery is not fit to be a parent. Sickeningly, children as young as 3 years old are being subjected to this kind of abuse. This sort of child abuse should be a crime and the people inflicting this mental and physical abuse on their children should be put in prison.
All fundamentalists operate in a similar manner. Adherence to dogma and faith-based beliefs are all that matter. Heretics and non-believers are enemies that must be crushed. The big difference between Christians and trans-activists is that the levers of cultural and political power in the United States in 2021 are held by trans-activists and those sympathetic to their cultish ideology. They also have the full support of corporate power, which has actively sought to weaponize identity-fetishism to polarize poor and working people against each to preclude any class-based solidarity.
And, Christians, whose ideology is 2000 years (more or less!) old, have matured in ways other spiritually motivated human groups have not. That's not to say those younger groups (including trans-activists) are not valid and righteous, but gee whiz, today's Cristian "fundamentalists" are NOT yester-century's Crusaders. The Christians are NOT "crushing" any "enemies" today, certainly not the way certain "cancellorian" and "censorian" Fundamentalists are.
"Nothing strikes at the heart of faith-based belief like the injection of objective reality and critical thinking, no matter how innocently or unobtrusively it is done." You nailed it, bravo!!
A problem for Glenn is that he supports and uses the term islamophobia (and probably homophobia), which is applied in the same way as transphobia is applied to him here. Either you believe in these insipid terms, or you don't. You can't have it both ways. Glenn makes good points in this article, but as others have pointed out, all the credentialing falls flat because he won't break with these monstrous people.
Hi Glenn, I just subscribed for the first time after watching your excellent video.
I'm probably a lot younger than your other subscribers (gen Z) and am also a trans woman, and I wanted to say that I completely agree with everything you said in this post and also your video. I've been following your tweets and writings for about a year and I have never seen you write anything that any rational person would consider transphobic. The massive expansion of what is considered "transphobic" (and who is considered "trans" to begin with) among my generation is something I first noticed occurring on Tumblr in the mid-2010s and has now made the jump to mainstream liberal discourse on Twitter and the corporate media.
As you said in the video, I think generally the increase in people identifying as bi or trans is due to increased social acceptance of the concept that these things are a spectrum and that many people place themselves on that spectrum instead of at the poles, but also that there is an unsual trend in people who would have once called themselves lesbians now calling themselves trans men (a trend that does not seem to exist in the opposite direction, i.e. gay men now calling themselves women) and it's worth investigating why that is. Anecdotally, I have seen significant social pressure for girls to identify as male, and as you said, there is overwhelming and widely-documented pressure to claim an oppressed identity so that you can fit into modern progressive spaces ("I'm not a straight white male, I'm a bisexual nonbinary!").
I laughed at your bit at the end discussing the bearded rich white boy who calls himself "nonbinary" because this is exactly the sort of thing I've discussed with friends -- but always in hushed tones. Saying this stuff in front of the wrong people would get me exiled from every social group I'm part of.
Anyway, thank you sir for your continued attempts at rationally examining and asking questions about important issues in our culture, from gender/sexuality to civil liberties, and I'm happy to join your community.
Where is the biological scientific evidence that gender is a sliding scale? This seems to me to be an invented concept by social “scientists” to legitimize psychopathology.
Everything in Nature is directed toward one thing—-reproduction. Why would Nature include a sectrum of genders such that a portion of the population is uninterested in reproducing? Extinction is very a goal in Nature.
Does transgenderism exist in other species?
Ancient Greek art reveals that homosexuality has been a phenomenon for thousands of years. While no gay gene has ever been found, it appears to be a stable, minor biological event. Until there is some sort of biological evidence for transgenderism, I remain skeptical that it is more than a body image disphoria, like anorexia nervosa.
How about I “express” my age as 70 1/2. Can I go to the Social Security office and demand to receive my full benefits? Why do people who “express” a gender expect to be treated special in society?
A way to think about it is like this: if I walk down the street and get catcalled by a man, he isn't doing it because of my sex, my chromosomal makeup, which he doesn't know. He's doing it based on my appearance, as someone who appears female. Biological sex is important in some situations (medicine, sport, etc), but in the vast majority of human interaction we base our perception of someone's gender solely on what they look like, not a test of their DNA.
For something like Social Security, the reason we give SS benefits to people is because they're too old to work; that getting old limits your physical ability to do labor. If you're a younger person, and you can't work because of a disability, you're entitled to government benefits too. It's not about age, it's about ability, but in lieu of a way to test people's ability to work we just decided to use age as the cutoff for SS benefits. It's not a perfect system.
I don’t find your reply persuasive. What does a man on the street have to do with your gender identity? This is something you know about yourself. So a man cat calls you. So what? That doesn’t turn a man into a woman. Check between your legs, sir. It’s still there.
I used the social security example to show how I can, like you, decide what I am. I decide I am 70 1/2 years old. But who will believe that? No one. My biology says otherwise. And SS will not indulge my delusion.
I still do not understand what makes you special such that you can defy biology.
The way others perceive you is central to the entire concept of identity, and is part of why identity politics is so toxic in the first place. "Race," for example, is just the way society views your skin color in relation to other people's skin colors; we don't really have any internal perception of our "race." Yet we have entire legal and social structures based entirely around your skin color.
We don't fully have an answer as to whether trans people originate from a mental condition or simply some kind of subconscious impulse, but either way the result is the same: people who (in theory) are socially indistinguishable from biological members of the same sex.
Another concrete real-world example of what I mean is the public restroom. I use the women's restroom because I'm socially indistinguishable from other women. If I used the men's room people would be very confused. The gender segregation of these rooms isn't enforced by chromosomes or genitalia, but rather on *appearance*.
If (hypothetically) they installed some sort of genital-scanner on the bathroom door, it would be very strange to result in people like me being forced to go to the men's bathrooms, and transgender men (who have penises and look like men) being forced into the women's bathroom. This would seem counter-intuitive to the goal of ensuring men are not in women's spaces. I'm not asking for special treatment, although I can't speak for everyone.
They aren’t given social security, they earned it by paying in to the social security system. If they did not work long enough to qualify for social security they can get Medicaid.
Well, age (at least since we started believing the Earth went around the Sun) is quite a bit more objective than gender, unless of course one is sure one has made up one's mind. (I didn't want to use "you" for "one", if you know what i mean.)
Check out what happens to "age" in relation to the speed of light, gravity, and other such things. For example, you and I will age different based on how far we are from a center of gravity - like Earth!
No. The way they express their gender is directly tied to the sex partner they want to attract - dominant type that desires to penetrate or submissive type that wants to be penetrated
Oh dear. Firstly your confusing gender and biological sex. gender is a social construct, it's how you experience yourself as masculine, femaine or something else. (Race, academic qualifications, social class and identifying as LGBTQ vs straight are also social constructs). A social construct is something that doesn't really exist in a biological way, it exists as a social reality that has huge power, but at the same time is illusory and can be dramatically different in a different society, or time.
A lot of other cultures and time periods have had different idea's about gender, and many traditional societies have a third gender which they understand in various different ways. An example would be the fa'afafine in Samoa (biologically male children raised as girls because their families wanted/needed a daughter, who live their lives as women). I understand that some indigenous american cultures have a third gender and their is a concept of this in Indian hinduism.
Biological sex is something different (though when you start to look into the science around biological sex you find that a lot of people don't fit neatly into either the typical female or typical male box biologically, a lot of people have more then one set of chromosomes for example). Some scientists working in this area believe that it is more accurate to understand biological sex as more of a continuum as well, and some would say that that was a bit of a stretch.
Of course homosexuality has been around forever, (and their is lots of evidence of it in the animal community too among horses, parrots, adolescent male lions to name but a few), but having part of your identity built around same sex attraction and activity is actually a pretty new phenomena. If you look at 18th century europe, their was plenty of people having gay sex, but no one thought of themselves as gay or straight.
Gender is not a social construct, It is innate. Gender is how you signal to others whether you are dominate or submissive aka whether you want to penetrate or be penetrated aka masculine or feminine.
The new gay males are faking it pretending ‘their’ sex/‘third sex’ is egalitarian. They end up being a bevy of bottoms hoping to find that elusive top.
Their is no Native American tradition of a third sex. The woman who claimed this about Native Americans admitted she had made it up. She called it ‘twin spirit’. Lots of people will make false claims to get attention or ignorance or because they cling to wrong ideas.
Very few people are intersex - it’s quite rare so no to lots of XX, XY variants. They exist, but they are very rare.
Moreover its more accurate to say that biological sex is identified - not assigned. It’s obvious if baby is a boy or girl unless they were born with an abnormality. In that case they can have their DNA tested. If they have a Y chromosome they are male regardless of the configuration or ‘X’s’ and ‘Y’s’.
You are confusing homosexuality / same sex attraction with hierarchical fights for dominance. What is happening with the animals is a competition of dominance and submission. Instead of a fight to the death one chooses to be submissive and be penetrated. That isn’t homosexuality. ‘Gay’ can be hierarchical, narcissistic, pederastic, pedophilic, age oriented, youth oriented, social, situational, political but not so often homosexual. The only true homosexual is a homosexual transexual who is a woman trapped in a man’s body who desires to have sex with straight males. The others are something else.....
Huh? 18th century Europe? So outside of the West if you penetrate you are dominate and masculine regardless if you are penetrating a man or woman. If you want to be penetrated you are submissive and feminine. Your biological sex doesn’t matter. Sex and gender are binary.
Visit www.rodfleming.com to read about the interaction of the New Gay Male, post-modernism, communism and much more. It’s the most fascinating corner of the internet.
I forgot to mention transgressive. Lots of LGBTQ folks are transgressives and want to upset society and destroy it and replace it with a communist utopia....
I’ve only seen a little bit of statistics breaking down LGBTQ into various categories. But certainly the idea that sexuality or gender is not binary and that ‘gays’ are a third sex or third gender is transgressive as it is also false.
All this back and forth discussion with anecdote presented as data proves my original point. We just don’t know enough about transgenderism. Is it biological or is it psychological? In the meantime, advocates are pushing hormones on adolescents, altering them for life. The Hippocratic Oath says— First, do no harm.
Because Human Beings are unique in our experience, in being the only known sentient species, and therefore the only ones aware of something called spirit, or non-material nature (call it mind or soul, if you want).
It just doesn't seem to me out of the ordinary, or not-to-be-expected, that our species would not SOLELY evolve in animal (as you say, reproductive) ways.
Mistakes happen all of the time. After all the basis for life is mutating viruses and bacteria.... those mutations being mistakes in the replication of genetic code. Those ‘mistakes’ can be beneficial, harmful or have no affect.
Perhaps, but "psychopathologies"? Maybe I'm being a snowflake, but that word seems over-negative, if not overwrought, in this context, or maybe we just disagree.
I agree! I think the shift in lesbians who might explore transitioning to non binary or male growing at a higher rate than gay men who might transition to female or non binary might be explained by the power dynamic between men and women.
In this current generation where it’s becoming more and more accepted to transition, young lesbians could become less common while young gay men have a more solid population. I think it has to do with the fact that being a male is still more powerful in this society than being a woman unfortunately. You see the wage gap, the abortion issue, women’s issues often have less importance than men’s, often baby boys are still preferred. Woman are still less powerful and because of this discrepancy you will see the tendency to stay male or become male in the general population because of the benefits of being male. If our society had a way where everyone was really equal, then my guess is that these trends would not favor the male and you would see more equal ratios.
My teen has a close friend who transitioned and I’m so happy my teen was so accepting of this change, it was as if nothing changed at all, they are still close friends. He had to remind me about the change in pronouns very matter of factly in the beginning because I was so used to the previous pronouns.
The only thing I worry about is reproduction in later years. Growing up I could care less about having kids. I thought I never ever wanted kids.. I was against having kids for so many reasons. Then.. I hit my 30’s and boom! I wanted a baby so bad! What if I had transitioned and lost the ability to have a child? I know adoption is always an option but when you are economically challenged it could be very hard to adopt. Even with my ability to have a baby it took years of trying. The idea to transition as a young person is a very serious decision and needs to be thoroughly investigated before any steps to are made to take away a chance to have a baby naturally later in life. This is one thing I worry about for my teen’s friend future.
It's a character from Fire Emblem: Three Houses; when I first registered my account I was using my real first name and then decided against it... the last thing I need is people I know finding this account and cancelling me too!
Also, I totally respect your wish for anonymity. Please don't take this as posturing, because it is just for me, but I turned 60 in January, and since everyone else seemed to be being canceled or censored, I decided to start using my real name before I was, too. Maybe I can become famous (infamous?) before I "disappear"!!
1) What do the words "male" and "female" or "man" and "woman" actually mean at this point? If a man feels like he's really a woman, but doesn't transition physically in any way, takes no hormones, maybe even doesn't dress as a woman, and still prefers women as sexual partners, but simply says, "I identify as a woman," what, exactly, is he identifying as?
2) Aren't the genders becoming identified by nothing more than their traditional gender roles, as frilly girls and manly men--stereotypes that earlier generations fought against?
3) What makes radical trans activists "left" in any way? Their agenda is about essentialism over class, and like the Puritans, they don't seem interested in fighting for any general tolerance or universal recognition of rights, but are primarily advancing their own interests. What specific aspects make their program leftist?
I have asked similar questions of many people for quite some time. At present, as best as I can tell, the answers seem to be:
1) Nothing and anything. Much like the dictionary rewrite of "racism," the overnight political vilification of "sexual preference," and the linguistic flailing around "defund" and "abolish," the postmodern cult constantly violates language to prop up its absurdist narratives.
2) Yes. "I like pink and am attracted to boys: ergo I am a girl!" How very progressive.
3) Tricky one because of the mercurial nomenclature (see #1) and multiple complex reasons. I think honestly we'd have to figure out what we even mean by "left" nowadays.
Left used to mean anti-war but now that the Dems are back to bombing Syria again (didn’t take long), I don’t see how any Democrat can claim to be left and support more needless wars. Biden is handing out big military contracts already to Egypt etc. And on and on it goes.
Anti-establishment means anti-war. Trump is anti-establishment in word and deed - no new wars under trump and draw downs everywhere. No wonder why they hated him so much. He cut in to their profits.
Same with hydroxychloriquine - it’s cheap and cures COVID but Big Pharma wants to sell Billions of dollars worth of ‘vaccines’ with zero liability. Visit the Children’s Heath Defense for more info - Robert Kennedy, Jr
You were wrong to believe that the left don’t believe in and starting wars. Just look at China, Russia, the Soviet Union, Iran, NAZI germany...
or in the US any of the wars and intrusions over the past 50+ years. The Establishment is all for wars because war is big money and whether it’s bombs or black markets or NGOs/religious organizations everyone feasts off of the national treasury and the blood of young men. Same thing with illegal immigration / human trafficking.
So true! 4 years, and NO military deployment, or increase, and plenty of responsible (imo) drawdown under that "warmongering" Republican.
It took the "peace and unity" Democrat 37 days to start empiring. (A little unfairness by me here, since it's a Mideast tit-for-tat thing, like that perfect, no-collateral-damage-except-the-usual-blowback assassination.)
True. I really believe part of our problem is that our linguistic networks of understanding are completley borked.
These things are hard to define by nature PLUS we all seem to hold often radically different definitions PLUS even internally we may be in error or outdated in our classifications PLUS we have media and big tech working to sow discord and disinformation like it's their jo--well ok it IS their job atm.
For many, the right correlates with conservative instead of liberal values. They are the only words that post modernism will take at their literal meaning. It is mind numbingly irritating that the left appropriated liberal from the right and the right decided that they were okay with that. Fucking idiots all around. Classic liberal values in the hands of authoritarians are just lip service without individual liberty.
Does this have to do with GG "liking" this comment, while apparently not liking the previous exact-same comment? (9-2, currently, in favor of GG's favor.)
Holy shit and fucking A, GG! you write "If I, with these views, am a bigoted enemy of the trans movement, then who are its allies? Do many of those who form this movement even want allies? "
Before that you signal your - self presumed - bona fides on trans issues. "Like, wow, mang, I am on your side! Why do you criticize me?"
You are just as pathetic and virtual signaling as is Taibbi. You can't resist offering up your credentials to demo that you are "one of the good guys".
Don't fucking do that. Just write what you think, and let the chips - and shit - fall where it will. Let you supported opinion stand on its own.
As soon as you attempt to present your credentials, you've lost the battle. I cannot, I CANNOT believe I( nee to explain this shit to guys as smarter as I thought your were.
I addressed that specifically. You’re assuming I don’t hold the views I said I do here. I do. I have spent years saying them. I would never apologize for expressing my views - and I didn’t remotely apologize here and I don’t — but I’m also not going to let people distort what I think. I said what my views are on trans issues to illustrate the bad faith nature of these accusations and to highlight how little deviation from their dogma is needed for these vilification campaigns to be launched, not in order to appease anyone or try to convince anyone of anything.
You say “just write what you think and let the chips - and shit - fall where it will,” but I’m not sure you really mean that since that’s exactly what I did but you wanted me to be artificially defiant about it.
Glenn, I really appreciate you commenting here, but I myself kinda said what Running Burning Man said to you to Matt Taibbi :-) I can't speak for others but at a certain point I'm fed up with you and Matt being nice and understanding to these Leftists who just want to abolish all western structures because they're spoiled brats who only really understand - and crave - a kind of totalitarianism I personally don't want to live under. If only their parents had been real parents. But these Leftists are still tantrummy children. And this is what the Left craves/hates, real parents. And I'm fed up with their acting out.
I am an old school leftist (as in - expropriate the bastard's means of production kind), and I don't recognize any of these people that are painted in media or in online opinion universe as leftist at all. They are simply Trojan horse of the establishment and owner class (and as we know, paid by them through various NGO) - once the public gets tired of their noxious groupthink and de-platforming "culture" there will be a huge backlash against them, which will necessarily catch and sweep away real leftists - those who actually think that taxing Jeff Bezos 80% and investing that into run-down schools, neighborhoods, public transport, clean water and other such stuff that benefits poor and communities of color is more beneficial than painting BLM or rainbow flags in front of their corporate offices. Once that happens, they will have decades more of unchallenged rule, change tack and flip from exploiting (fake) "left-wing" useful idiots to exploiting (real) "right-wing" ones.
Couldn’t agree more. “Left” used to mean (and in any “normal” country still does) first and foremost “pro-workers” and “anti-war” (vs “pro-bosses” and “pro-war”). Somehow, though, in the US for a lot of people it has come to mean primarily “100% on board with trans activism” and such. Why? Because we have two major corporate-owned/warmongering parties and pretty much the only differences between them are the “wedge” cultural/social issues like abortion, gay marriage and trans bathrooms. So both parties and their media have redefined what it means to be “left” and “right” by basically taking class and war/peace completely out of the picture. Which allows the new redefined “left”/Dems and “right”/Repubs to wage never-ending cultural wars, riling up their respective bases, while the billionaires and big corporations that own both parties, the entirety of the msm and everything else under the sun make out like bandits at the expense of the people and the planet.
But, but, but....Your "real leftists" are wrong (imo) to believe that "taxing Jeff Bezos 80% and investing that into run-down schools, neighborhoods, public transport, clean water and other such stuff that benefits poor and communities of color is more beneficial than painting BLM or rainbow flags in front of their corporate offices."
imo, that would be much more destructive of poor communities than anything MarxistLivesMatter could do to them. Jeff Bezos money is MUCH more valuable to the poor if left in Jeff Bezos's hands, since then more of Jeff Bezos's money will be used (whether Jeff Bezos is retired or not) to hire them, thus teaching them to fish, as opposed to feeding them one nourishing meal on the way to the Jeff Bezos's funded riot, which will benefit the poor not at all.
Pensions used to be commonplace along with many other benefits for all large and most medium sized companies and even small companies. That went out the door with globalism and crooked politicians colluding with CEOs and Corporate boards to raid the pension funds to pay for golden parachutes.
What America needs is to make policies that puts America and American workers first. Trump had it right.
Agree with your conclusion, but moving from defined benefit retirement systems (pensions) to defined contribution retirement systems, gave workers much more control AND security. Pensions require the solvency of the institution to be guaranteed (insured) much too far into the future (at least a working lifetime), for it to work well, and pensions are too ripe for fraud and public bankruptcy.
Thanks for the reply; I do appreciate that. It seems I did not make myself clear:
"You’re assuming I don’t hold the views I said I do here. " No, I did not assume that at all. Not sure why you think that. But, failing in my own warning, I'll say something in specific response to that accusation: I've followed you in one place or another for years. Sometimes I agree with your take, sometimes not. Much like Matt Taibbi, as to whom I made a similar comment recently. And he objected to my comment, too. I'm absolutely certain that you hold the views you say you do. But for the points you were making, those views are irrelevant - to me, at least.
"I would never apologize for expressing my views - and I didn’t remotely apologize here and I don’t ..." Gawds! I was not suggesting an apologia! Not at all. My point was that you - at least to my reading - hedged the credit you wish folks to give to your views, especially by a certain side of the opinion spectrum, and to insulate yourself in a fashion from potential criticism by what I labeled virtue signaling to preface your opinion. Your opinion should stand or fall on its merits, not on which side of an issue you are on. At least that is my not so humble opinion.
"... but I’m also not going to let people distort what I think". Great. But you know as do the readers and subscribers here that you cannot prevent distortion, at least in the current age. I do not think you can seriously append your political/social/whatever views each and every time you post an opinion. The risk, as I tried to write, was in undercutting the merits of your opinion by saying, in so many ways "I'm a friend". Again, IMNSHO.
"I said what my views are on trans issues to illustrate the bad faith nature of these accusations and to highlight how little deviation from their dogma is needed for these vilification campaigns to be launched, not in order to appease anyone or try to convince anyone of anything." This is toughest for me to respond to. That is a legit point in my view (if that matters). But you are a very good writer, an excellent researcher, with a long public history. As you yourself wrote "I am fortunate enough to have a long enough body of work, a large enough readership which trusts my integrity even when they disagree with my views, and a strong and independent enough platform that renders me largely immune at this point from the effects of such reputational attacks." But, GG, what about folks who are just passersby? Mere citizens? Those whose views may not be as enlightened as yours? This with only marginally different take? Can they ask questions? Can they posit the very inquiries you did and be treated as human? Or does everyone need a "vaccination against bigotry card"? If so, we are doomed. Best in my view to not play that game.
"journalists in the liberal sector of media along with left/liberal activists accused me ... [and]Twitter’s new team of extremely politicized editorialists summarized the trending term this way" [your a shit, GG]". OK, Twitter. You cannot fight it. You cannot. Not sure you should even try. But if you do, try on that platform or ignore it.
Long story short, thanks, again, for the reply. Hope my further response clarifies things. If it is isn't clear here, I just hate the bullshit that spews out these days but do not think posting one's bona fides based on personal beliefs and alignment rather than reason is gonna solve anything.
I think I understand what you are saying. Glen starts by identifying himself as part of the group, as if he doesn't want to be identified as a unique individual that has his own beliefs that mark him as “different” or an “other”. Instead of just saying I believe in this or that, he's trying to appeal to the group’s definitions of what a member should believe. Only after he sets those boundaries for why he's part of the group, or should be part, he goes on to give his personal opinions. It's like a request to be respected by that group. I don't think it's an apology, just an request.
I actually agree with both you as well as the person you are replying to Running Burning Man. I understand your take. But I also understand their take which is that one cannot reason with an irrational crowd which only uses emotional manipulation to attack their enemies. However Running Burning Man should also understand that you putting out this video and this article isn’t really you reasoning with the irrational crowd, it’s actually to try to change the mind and give a voice to the audience who are watching this whole thing go down while too afraid to speak up.
the mobbing in this respect could be a conservative impulse to 'pendulise' stuff (exaggerate to provoke a counter movement) and there could be this slight sm-need for taboo to keep things exciting. you also probably outed/guilted a few people.
Nonsense. His character is being maligned it's totally appropriate for him to point to his actual documented position on these issues to contextualize his rebuttal. Especially since it's relevant to one of the points he's making about the counterproductive ways in which these groups engage in advocacy.
I think apologizing is not the way to go, but I didn’t read Glenn’s remarks as any kind of apology. My sense is there are many, many people who have never heard of Glenn and this is his first opportunity to introduce himself to them. Explaining what he thinks gives him a way to make his point about the dangers of these attempts to silence people.
As I wrote below, ultimately this cancel campaign is not about the substance of people’s particular tweets or remarks. It’s about the establishment leveraging outrage, real or manufactured, to maintain its authority over who it allows to speak. The people complaining about Glenn or Matt or anyone else we see in the news are not the ones with control. They can only demand that those with actual control silence people.
Right now we’re in a historical moment when the interests of establishment and the woke seem to coincide and this might last for some time, some years actually. But if and when the establishment is finished with using the woke or if the woke change their target to include establishment power, then the woke will be tossed aside. History is filled with this phenomenon. See Aung San Sun Kyi being tossed after looking the other way at military atrocities; look at the Egyptian liberals repressed by their military after they looked the way or cheered when the military overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood. The list is long. The woke are headed there.
Apologising is never the way to go. The mob always see apologies as both an admission of guilt and a sign of weakness, i.e. an incitement to further attacks.
The British Foreign Office could well be one of the most guilty bunch of shitheads in history; nonetheless their unofficial motto "Never Apologise, Never Explain" is the correct one. Honest people don't need your public self-flagellation and will probably find it more suspicious than the initial accusation, and dishonest people will only abuse it for their own ends. In either case it is counter-productive.
I've never known Glenn to be apologetic in his presentation of the facts as he sees them, but I've only been following him for about 15 years.
I think it's ok to say to any adversary, while in a very public debate, "I am truly sorry if I am wrong, But my opinion is still.....," and then go ahead and re -communicate your argument. How does that NOT advance your public support?
Remember that a real part of Glenn's criticism is this brand of leftism Pushing away their allies. Articulating that you are on the same side is an important part of that criticism.
I actually agree with both you as well as Glenn. I understand Glenn’s take. But I also understand your take which is that one cannot reason with an irrational crowd which only uses emotional manipulation to attack their enemies. However you should also understand that Glenn putting out this video and this article isn’t really him reasoning with the irrational crowd, it’s actually to try to change the mind and give a voice to the audience who are watching this whole thing go down while too afraid to speak up.
On the contrary, when falsely accused it's necessary to state your actual views as clearly as possible, preferably backed up with a record.
In this case, it's the necessary prelude to questioning whether those attacking him even WANT allies - though as a practical matter, most are just carried away with the mob mentality - or pursuing a prior grudge.
The descent of trans-activism into terminal, censorious self-righteousness puzzles and alarms me.
In a perfect world Glenn shouldn't have to establish his stance on issues, because people wouldn't be looking for a shortcut to ignore difficult conversations. But that's the reality of the world we live in.
Each person can decide to what degree they're willing to play the game in the hopes of changing some minds, and to what degree they're happy to just preach to the choir. They're all valid approaches.
If your goal at the end of the day is to try and improve the state of the world, sometimes you have to be willing to suck it up and play the game. Or at the very least, understand the tactic when you see other people do it, rather than just assuming they're being a pussy.
Because I wrote DBAP to GG doesn’t really mean I think he IS one. It is just a fair warning about the slope he might be on. I’d say his history is pretty clear he has not been heretofore. I worry about the slope we all are on.
Don't worry, I totally get that you don't think he is. But you do very much seem to think that this tactic isn't a valid one. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to put words in your mouth.
What I'm saying is that it's a perfectly valid strategy. If you want to reach those people who tune out the moment they think you're "the enemy", then you have to convince them that you're not first. It sucks, but that's reality. And if no one ever tries to get through to these people, then how will their opinions ever be changed?
If you think that comment is persuasive because it is "basic debate theory" you are living in high school where you get points for technique. This is not high school and points are not awarded for technique. And it is not even debate, hough some may see it that way.
I understood what GG did. I found it lacking as a matter of courage of one's convictions. Convictions, that is as a journalist. Instead, my take was that he was trying to buy credibility by emphasizing his political alignment with a certain interest group who appeared to attack him. That is the sorta shit that the NYT, The New Yawker, WaPo, CNN, Fox, and others in the "traditional" media employ and they cast out those who do not toe that line.
There are two sides (at least) to this issue as the comments here make clear. But what a lively debate erupted.
By the way, you do not get journalistic "weight" by announcing your political alignment with the faction attacking you. You get weight, or as you emphasized, WEIGHT, from the intellectual honesty of your presentation. You know, facts, absence of intrinsic bias, etc.
Yeah if you could kindly refrain from using my anatomy to insult people, that would be great. To everyone else who didn't say a damn thing, come on already.
GO after the mob mentality, because it should not be allowed to sit at the adults table, let alone speak. There is a kiddie table for the kiddies for a reason. In this context, it sits at the aisle of every grocery store in existence.
The problem for many in facing the enemy with implacable defense is that many individuals will spring straight into attacks that can be carried to your home where your family is and it can become a dangerous situation. I am old enough now that I have lost my will to fight people face to face. Because I tend to say exactly what I believe which could get me in trouble, especially as a conservative leaning person living in Los Angeles. I get lots of dirty looks just walking outside a mall with no mask. I would never want to engage those maddog lookers with dialogue. Things could get ugly fast. But I still smile and stand my ground to walk freely as I go on my way.
I totally agree about always taking risk of this confrontation or that, as well as the cost of a "worst-case scenario," especially when family and friends are part of the equation, into full consideration. And NO individual today should be faulted for wishing to remain anonymous for any number of valid reasons, but not all of us are so vulnerable or constricted, at any given point in time.
Here we have GG stepping up and incurring the extreme risk of which you speak. Your support of him, even in anonymous forum, is hugely important.
I am in position now, with children on the cusp of adulthood, to step up and I plan to do so, to take on more personal risk. If all you have to offer today, because you judge the risk too great, is spiritual support, I think GG and I would gladly accept it.
I want to bring Sigmund Freud back to life just so that we can watch him completely lose his shit. He would dive into the nearest pile of cocaine and never resurface again.
One type of transgendered is a homosexual transexual. It can be argued that effeminate homosexual males are denying their sexual inversion / transgenderism.
‘Gay’ is an umbrella term - it includes many types of sexuality
Or, it can be argued that a man with effeminate characteristics is no less of a man because of that. There may be markers for what is considered to be transgender. But I am inclined to think that using social constructs for masculine and feminine characteristics as a point of delineation is, at best, regressive.
I have seen videos of people teaching children that liking boy things or girl things is what indicates whether you are correctly gendered or transgender. Regressive may be too kind of a word for that line of thinking. It is shockingly devoid of nuance. It blows me away that I am now defending feminist values and the effeminate men of the world from tyrannical religious zealots. I did not volunteer for that and yet, here I am.
You are conflating biological sex, gender expression and sexuality. Sex is binary. Gender is binary and even sexuality is informed by those same binaries.
Claiming objectivity is white supremecist and only a subjective ‘lived’ experience is authentic or true is post-modernism and it is false.
I didn't say that *everything* is a social construct but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you knew that when you wrote this. You are deliberately misrepresenting what I said because it is objectively hilarious to suggest that effeminate characteristics in men are a denial of their sexual inversion / transgender ism.
*Note* I realize that humor is inherently subjective but I'm making an effort to include the term, "objectivity" in every response because you erroneously claimed that it is white supremacist.
I would point out that it is postmodernism to do so. Critical Theory has become a parody of itself. It is actually diminishing the value and meaning of language and providing cover for hateful people. It is a comedy of errors that keeps getting worse with every passing day.
You didn't respond to my critique with anything substantive. I will take that to mean that you believe that effeminate men are really just *sexually* inverted. Or is that term also conflating gender with sexuality? Objectively speaking, I would think that it should be *gender* inversion. If you are going to start your own religion, you will want to make sure that the trans woke orthodoxy is consistent. You also need an authoritative scripture and someone that everyone can rally behind as a prophet and teacher.
"In the beginning was the Word (Logos) and the Word was objectively white supremacist."
There is a scale between the masculine - feminine binary.
Homosexual transexuals are sexual inverts and effeminate males. They desire to be penetrated by straight males. Their femininity signals that they desire the opposite - a masculine sex partner and to be penetrated.
No, you don't get to claim that instances of "homosexual transexual," and I knew one who had Klinefelter syndrome back in the 70s, means all gay men with some femme traits are really just transgender. This is the narcissism of transgender ideologues talking. Gay still means biological men who primarily prefer sex with biological men.
Argued by the homosexual male or for the homosexual male that the normies basking in the glow of their approval by Gawd, despite as we have covered their propensity to suck their own dick if they were able?
Why can’t you identity freaks on the left and the right just let people be themselves?
And gay men are now being shamed as transphobic for not being attracted or wanting to sleep with transmen.... even if the transman is missing that ever so important bodily component....
Watching the mob try to break/intimidate anyone who doesn't instantaneously display 100% compliance or dares to ask any questions or dig any deeper on any issue is a practice that will soon backfire. I view this as the honeymoon period where a small but vocal group, empowered by the echo-chamber dynamic of social media and the internet as a whole, can use their technical savvy to push and intimidate others into subscribing to the hivemind, or else...
Even here in Portland OR, like myself, most of my friends are liberal but none share the same extreme-left views that appear commonplace on sites like Twitter where, for example, there is a 'common understanding' that if a straight man is not romantically interested in a trans woman, he is thus "transphobic" and needs to be "dragged". This kind of thinking is absolutely insane. Threatening to cancel someone lest they romantically link up with someone they are not attracted to is a very dangerous path to go down, but the woke left seems eager to push everyone down it.
But as the 'woke left' tests the waters to see how far they can push their form of social extremism on society, it will eventually reach a breaking point. It seems like an impossibility (or at least, an improbability) right now, but I am certain eventually this irrational fear of being canceled for not subscribing to whatever the latest bizarro take on moral righteousness is will finally buckle and people will get over their fear of both the intimidation tactics of Twitter mobs and the compliant mainstream media who seems eager to take their editorial cues from whatever morality issue is trending that day.
And for all those reasons I am incredibly grateful to you for being one of the only voices of reason in the media right now. It is a gift to all of us and I am so thankful.
The issue is tweeter and the way the platform encourages group think and narcissistic rage. Many newspaper reporters have tweeter accounts and spend way too much time on the platform. I also live in Portland, OR and when you read any of the local papers you can tell which reporters are on tweeter and are taking sides in yet another woke tweeter war. A local coffee roaster actually went out of business because all the major papers took a stand in what was basically a tweeter war against the coffee roaster. That editors actually let tweeter warriors report woke nonsense is one reason that newspapers in in trouble. The tweeter warrior reporters are breaking the connection between newspapers and the community that they are reporting on.
Just like in the old days a vicious slander or gossip could destroy your village blacksmith or baker (as they would be shunned by the community), same happens in the new "global village" created by technology - same evil tongues can destroy reputations, livelihoods, businesses.
Originally Marxism was meant to use the divide and conquer methodology to put people in the oppressor-oppressed boxes along socio economic lines (rich vs poor). This divide and conquer method has been used for centuries as a way to rule people because people would keep in fighting instead of focusing on the real enemy - the politicians. However a few decades ago, they figured out that they could expand this methodology along other categories too. That’s when the identity politics was born- race, sex, sexual orientation, sexual preference etc all started getting used for oppressor - oppressed dividing and conquering.
Is that why, back when you Russkis were Communist (or should I say "communists" to make the true Marxists stop rolling over in their graves), you were able to "pump up" those East German gals?
I had somebody recently ask me if Russia were Communist still. I'm sure many would insist it is. In any case its name seems to be Putin according to at least one commenter in this forum.
As to pumping up - sure, it's all Russians. Just like novichoks etc. And no, don't try to compare it with someone like Serena Williams - that's different!
Well, maybe we don’t have to but let’s not pretend on the road to where we currently find ourselves the majority population that considers themselves mentally healthy, normal and approved of by their Gawd has countenanced everything from hostile work environments, red lining and housing discrimination to penalty free violence designed to intimidate or maybe just to reinforce the hetero manliness of the afore mentioned normal, mentally healthy, approved by their Gawd fellow citizen who feels empowered to purge polite society of its mentally ill freaks.
Even though we all know you guys would suck your own dicks every day before breakfast if you could and that faux lezzie porno action is a hetero fave.
"you guys would suck your own dicks" - would I? The rest of that statement totally went over my head too.
Aren't you a bit over-dramatic? Have you heard of the term "bullying"? That is, that there's always bullies who would pick on a person's characteristics no matter what? And yes, one of them being sexual preference.
Yep. Alexander (bi, ive heard?) needed every FIGHTER (even the non-manly men) he could conscript, and had no use for the fairer type of human. Those years and victories would not have happened if the heteros who had NOT learned to satisfy themselves with rosie palm (like I hear Socrates publicly demonstrated?) could not "lean'" on like-disabled comrade, in hand, ass, and mouth. I would have chosen the latter if I had lost my right arm in the previous battle.
Now, I actually wouldn’t support specific hate crime laws because 1) I think AG’s are prosecuting murderers successfully now (as opposed to say when all white juries in the south refused to convict white lynchings) and 2) if it makes it a federal offense the perp gets a better ride in many cases than state prisons. I admit to being too lazy to verify that.
The holier than thou, they are all mental cases types chap my ass.
At first is was tolerance - that's good. Then it was acceptance - fine with that too. Next you were required to support. Now they are demanding celebration. Next step will be advocacy. It will never be enough.
One of the big things I wonder here is how many of these vocal trans activists who are at 100 on Glenn’s scale are parents, or ever plan to be. I am a millennial, so I have lots of blanket trans rights supporters in my circle of friends. However, I’m a rarity in actually being a parent within that circle. It was an agonizing decision to figure out if we wanted my son to have a circumcision or not - which we ultimately decided isn’t an appropriate thing to decide about someone else’s body. All of this to say, I can’t even imagine how much harder it is to decide what to do if your child or teenager decides they are trans and wants to start hormone therapy or any of the transitional therapies. I am mostly in favor of trans rights - probably an 80-90 on the scale - but if we can’t at least ask what age is appropriate to transition and whether or not the therapists are using coercive tactics to push kids towards becoming trans then I am sorry, but your movement is just ideological zealotry. Just like I would be told I can’t understand the trans experience as a straight white man, I would tell these people they can’t understand being a parent if they have no children. Anyone without a child needs to shut their mouth on this one - they can’t possibly understand what we have to deal with.
IMHO, your job as a parent is not just to love your child but to protect them, and that includes protection from ideological zealots. In my teen years, they came from the Right in the form of Bible Thumpers. Now, they come from the Left in the form of Trans Activists. Let neither intimidate you. They’re all off balance. Your child is a person, not some experiment for anyone’s agenda.
Yes, exactly, and in the end, a human gains full societal freedom when they become an adult, not before (yes, different for different individuals, but 18 years not unreasonable as a societal redline/goal). Before that , we rely on and empower well-meaning parents, as we as a society should, if only since they are automatically closest to the child, and would seem to be the most natural at loving AND protecting. We as society harness that nature.
And it's self-evident that children and especially teens are uniquely susceptible to the sorts of online social pressures that might influence someone to transition when they aren't truly trans.
And I suspect that many of these parents prefer their child change into a male or female gender stereotype mimicking them than that having a weird gay or lesbian kid.
Most vocal trans activists are Autogynephiles who typically marry and have children before they get older and they can no longer contain their gender dysphoria.
Go to www.rodfleming.com he has sensible advice on hormonal treatments and gender reassignment surgery for transgender children, adolescents and adults.
There is no longer a "left v right" juxtaposition. Glenn is under attack because he abandoned the plantation. Therefore, whatever he says, claims, writes, thinks is not just nullified, it is given a negative score ("Shut UP!! They explained"). Heretics must be stoned.
To leftists everywhere: there are always people to whom you are a right-winger. As the right is canceled, >you< come more into the spotlight. The people who keep moving left must rationalize this situation -> you are getting more extremely rightist.
The last one standing on the left will be so far to the left that she will be more right wing than Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Xi, AOC.
There is no centerground to a leftist, because >they< are the center of their universe, and it is a left wing center.
Confused? Don't be. It is not intended to be rational. All that is required is acceptance and compliance, or self-cancelation.
I haven't practiced medicine in more than 30 years; when I did, I was a psychiatrist. There are several issues involved here. The first is that we do not know what the long-term effects of puberty-blockers are on children. The second is that puberty begins around 12, bur the pre-frontal cortex, the part of the brain most involved in reasoned decision-making, does not mature until one's mid-twenties. Making irreversible decisions that seriously affect the remainder of one's life without a mature pre-frontal cortex is a form of Russian Roulette. Forcing those decisions on children of fifteen is nothing short of child abuse. I don't have a solution for this.
A few years ago I participated in an on-line forum that dealt with issues facing marginalized people. A transgender character was introduced in the story we all followed and discussed, and I began a comment with "The transgender phenomenon, as old as mankind, . . ." Cue shit-storm. I had insulted all transgenders by using the pejorative "phenomenon" to describe them. Since I was obviously transphobic, I must also be homophobic, and the pile-on occurred. Xenophobic, alt-right bigot, racist, etc, etc. The forum's intolerance, not to mention poor vocabulary, created a hostile space. I quit. Unknown to most, I provided half of the financial support to keep the forum alive. It withered and died.
I have to confess I do not understand transgenderism, nor do I expect ever to be able to. I don't need to. I accept that it's real. Acceptance beats understanding every time.
The left always eats its own. Strangely enough, when I served in the Army in the early ’70s, it was forbidden to be gay. You would be discharged immediately. I knew of several people who were gay, and it was common knowledge. Nobody cared as long as you did your job. What you did off duty and base was your business.
Over the years, things have changed, and now you must publicly accept alternative lifestyles or be skewed in the public arena. The criteria for that public approval are unknown to most of us, as it changes almost daily. Personally, I do not care what anybody’s sexual preference or practice is as long as children are not brought into the mix. Consenting adults is the keyword here.
This is only my opinion, and I accept that it will not be popular here, and that is OK with me. The worst thing for any movement is government involvement by picking winners and losers in these debates. It always ends badly because politicians are corrupt by nature and do what is best for them, and not us.
Congenital victimhood has limitations. The Black activist community doesn't have nearly the common cause with the gay community that certain intersectionalists believe. Recall that in 2013, Bill DeBlasio surprisingly won the Dem primary for NYC mayor over Christine Quinn because blacks overwhelmingly voted for the white guy with the black kid, rather than the LBGTQ candidate who was favored, and a "true victim." Even if they succeed in silencing the Trumpian right (good luck there), they have each other to go after next.
I find the whole trans movement fascinating for a variety of reasons. As a gay person I do have some sympathy for transgenders, and as a strong believer of civil rights and free will, I support anyone's decision to live the life as the opposite gender if that is what makes them happy. And, as a gay person, I also know that there are many gays and lesbians who resent the notion of being lumped with transgenders in that ever exploding alphabet list that marks the modern LGBtA+ movement.
But at the same time I find it strange we can't have a frank and realistic discussion about transgenderism and all the implications that come with it (women's sports being an obvious one). And I am concerned that the hardcore activists refuse to accept the basic biological difference between women and trans women, and their insistence that trans women are real women when they biologically are not and cannot ever be and will never experience the whole range of biological experiences and body experiences only women can (which is also true for trans men, but I do notice that most cases it's transwomen rather than transmen that is causing most of the furore).
And I do also see a clear difference between genuine transexuals and a growing number of people, particularly younger people at certain ages, who seem to seek transgenderism as an escape mechanism for emotional or real life problems rather than a sincere belief in their own transgenderism. This is a topic that clearly merits exploration but whenever researchers or scientists try to, they're accused of transphobia and funding cancelled, and the drawbridge pulled up (or door slammed closed).
What is it about transgenderism that has turned its advocates to totalitarianists? I'm not quite sure what or why. But it is fascinating.
What is bothersome about this is that the trans-affirming group has full license to rush in and support anyone's decision to declare being of the opposite sex, and to viciously crush all discussion and sober analysis. The other group is instantly labeled some kind of monster with no valid points to make. When the subject is a child, the cautious parent is no longer deemed to have the child's best interest at heart and is labeled the abuser, while the trans-affirmers are the child's liberators. What civilization can withstand such an open assault on the parent-child bond.
I see much of it as essentially a religion, and one that is resistant to reason. It is perfectly reasonable to question trans competing in women's sports. Biology matters. The reaction to raising this issue had much in common with religious zealotry.
Yes, it's a moral community. This is the creepy part. There is explicit competition to be the most oppressed. Before learning about critical theory it's just confusing. Once you see the activist's game for what it is --- it's a dialectic not a conversation --- it becomes unhinged for reality. Aaaaaaand elites have fully weaponized this to attack the people who claim their subjective experience is more worthy being *revered* (to borrow a term Glenn used to use all the time ;) ) I had a feeling I wouldn't agree with Glenn just didn't realize how much! I'm curious how much he knows about critical social justice since it's something we all need to be aware of nowadays.
It is fascinating to see what happens in a schema where victimization and weakness proportionally bestow power and strength. It shows how dependent the latter are on societal norms.
I'd argue we have broken the scales of empathy vs. indifference. Too much indifference, and we callous our hearts to the genuine suffering of the helpless and beleaguered. Too much empathy, and we incentivize a mad quest for pity and perceived pariahdom at all costs
With identity politics the more you can identify with a marginalized group the more social currency you earn. This can explain a lot of today’s youth identifying as transgendered along with the mass hysteria among young women to transition which has been fueled by social media. So tragic.
Sounds similar to something MLK said: "Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic."
And as Ryuken says in Fist of the North Star: "Power without perception is spiritually useless and therefore of no true value!
Women are generally hierarchical and the Marxists have created a hierarchy of identities.
Im very curious how they will pivot since their hierarchies are based on what I call the "quantum hot potato of power": make sure you're not caught holding it when everyone is looking and you can wield all the power you want with total impunity.
So if people start to see a world where straight white guys are a minority group being actively discriminated against by affirmative action and outperformed in many places like by women in academia and several Asian groups economically, what do they do? If straight white men end up being underrepresented by population in certain areas do they fight for equity? Do they force an elementary school with disproportionately high number of minority female teachers to hire less qualified white males? Do they force they bench LeBron so some lesser white player can get some minutes? Conversely, do they force women into trucking or mining jobs where they are woefully underrepresented?
Jeez, M. Apollo's Lyre, I'd buy and read the book that had your post as the jacket tease. Can I order direct?
Ha! Thank you; you're too kind. The Scales of Empathy is one of a few ideas I've been kicking around developing into an actual book, so if it ever happens I will send you a copy! : )
Their cult replaces religion in a follower’s life.
Watch this women talking about leaving the social justice cult:
https://youtu.be/uVSgVlZjk8c
Thank you. I have just recently heard of this Youtube channel and have been meaning to check it out. I've heard that the "backfire effect" makes it incredibly hard for people to admit they were wrong or believed something that wasn't true. It certainly takes require emotional / psychological maturity.
It’s a pathology embraced by a cult.
Dogmatic cults.
It doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes two loving parents.
Bonus points for the Hillary jab!
Remember the red dinner? ;)
Preferably biological. Children’s rights are totally ignored from the moment they are conceived. People innately want to know their biological parents and that they aren’t a commodity.
Well the starting point of children's rights is quite the can of worms, now, isn't it?
I would say it's children's NEEDS that are foremost on parents' minds.
They can rebel, and win their own rights, thank you very much. 'Cause this parent raises freedom fighters.
You?
It’s part of the pathology of Autogynephiles.
Its NOT just the trans people that have gone nuts. There is not a single group that has ever been oppressed or felt it had been oppressed that is not prepared to nail a white man to a wall just on principle and cancel and harass any non white male that blasphemes.
These people are religious zealots to a new faith. Heretics will be burned or crushed beneath stones until they admit their sins and even then they are still sentenced to death.
Originally Marxism was meant to use the divide and conquer methodology to put people in the oppressor-oppressed boxes along socio economic lines (rich vs poor). This divide and conquer method has been used for centuries as a way to rule people because people would keep in fighting instead of focusing on the real enemy - the politicians. However a few decades ago, they figured out that they could expand this methodology along other categories too. That’s when the identity politics was born- race, sex, sexual orientation, sexual preference etc all started getting used for oppressor-oppressed dividing and conquering.
Yes same thing. The US doesn’t have a class system so they had to come up with something else that’s divisive and chosen identity that you are born with - race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, skin color, etc..
Plus blaming white people and westernism for every ill benefits the Chinese and their plan to take over the World.
More weight!
Yeah, they are going to run out of stone.
Back to the Twitter quarry!
Identity politics social justice is a cult that replaces religion and makes the followers feel they are doing something food with their lives. They are delusional and brainwashed.
Transgenderism is postmodern. Truth is subjective, whatever you want it to be. Denying that there are two sexes makes biology subjective. This is ridiculous.
The fact that transgenderism is clustering among school kids suggests to me that it is a new fad to make one feel special, to seek attention.
I think Douglas Murray is right. Society has not had enough time to examine whether transgenderism is a real biological thing or a psychopathology. Peoples’ rush to accept it as real is virtue signaling.
Would you agree with a painfully thin person who looks at her body and insists she is fat and needs to lose weight? Or would you urge this person suffering of a body image disorder, anorexia nervosa, to seek psychological help?
That pre-pubertal kids are being given hormones is child abuse. Advocates of this practice should be stopped and punished.
100%. Murray gets a lot right
Transgenderism is real. What is post-modern is the transgressive new gay male.
"Society has not had enough time to examine whether transgenderism is a real biological thing or a psychopathology." Nonsense. It's as old as the hills -- like gay marriage.
It’s actually both. There are two types of transgenderism - Autogynephiles and homosexual transexuals.
That's why it shouldn't be studied as a possible "psychopathology," but as a societal phenomenon. Like you say (I think you are saying it), individuals have always bucked societal norms if they felt like it (and thought about it, too, not just "felt"), and as long as they aren't using force, shouldn't the individual be free to do so, even in the extreme case of the majority considering it a "pathology."
Trans-trenders vs. transgressives
It still comes down to a common concern for the relation between the individual and the State.
Yes. I could not agree more. Nothing to add, but a heart was not enough for this comment.
Agreed, it’s a fascinating phenomenon. NOTHING gets you smeared, labeled and canceled faster than, not even necessarily disagreeing, but merely ASKING A QUESTION about this. TERF! Everybody under the sun is a TERF. It’s the weirdest kind of “activism” I’ve ever witnessed, and I too am a gay man (who grew up in the 1970/80s). Can you imagine gays and lesbians fighting for equal rights from the 1960s onward just walking around all day screaming “homophobe” at anyone they didn’t like a 100% and shouting them down and demanding they be silenced?! I find it so bizarre. I must be getting old, I guess.
Thank you for your reply. It helps me understand some of the furor going on about sexuality. My major concern has been the effect on young people who are encouraged to make a life changing choice that they should not make until much older IMHO. y
I was recently dumped, as a friend, by a lifelong friend who decided to come out after he entered the national guard in the Vietnam era. I had always valued his friendship, but when he discovered I was a hardcore Trump supporter he discarded our friendship in an uncordial manner. I am straight and have always been conservative. He has moved to the political extreme now. I see both sides hardening their positions. The moderates seem to be taking sides and many still just riding the fence to avoid losing friends.
You should ask your friend if he would have been happy if trump had fired Richard Grennell for being gay instead of making him the most adored Director of National Intelligence by his followers. And guess what- mitt Romney, the democrat adored RINO in fact did fire Grenell in 2012 from his campaign for being gay.
Richard Grenell for CA Gov.
Grenell acted like a true "exceptional American" while ambassador in Germany pissing Germans off mightily. You might even say he contributed to Trump looking bad in Europe - unless Trump really intended him to. Really obnoxious, cowboy-like attitude reinforcing the stereotypical American image there. Whatever he is personally his act there was asshole-like.
Check out Grenell’s side of view point which he talks about on Dave Rubin’s show earlier last year. He talks about Germany specifically. He says because of Germany’s past history, they pretty much offer no support to lots of things including NATO wise. That’s why Grenell wasn’t liked by them. He also hates the UN which is another reason they don’t like him. Imo that’s not his fault, that’s Germany’s fault. I have my own issues with Grenell because he and Mike Pence played a crucial role in getting Assange arrested from the Ecuador embassy.
Here’s the Dave Rubin interview if you are interested:
https://youtu.be/TUL1KzYbEm8
Of course he's going to defend his record as every politician and state employee does.
But I'm not defending Germany. It, as any other European country, is a staunch US bitch. Their elites have been corrupted and made subservient to the US, and their media is a sewer on par with the US's for those same reasons. And yes, they do have a past. Every country does, and the USA itself is no exception. Does it mean that, say, a German ambassador can boss the US around as to what it must do on its own soil or according to its own interests?
This short article lists just a few of things Grenell was pursuing.
https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article208201763/Umstrittener-Diplomat-Richard-Grenell-soll-als-US-Botschafter-in-Berlin-abtreten.html
On paragraph there says:
"There were even occasional requests from the opposition to declare him an “undesirable person” and thus to expel him, as it were. Bundestag Vice President Wolfgang Kubicki (FDP) said the ambassador behaved "as if the United States was still an occupying power here"."
As for NATO - is Germany forcing the US to keep its military there? On the contrary, the US needs them there for their own purposes first and foremost. Here's some info:
https://www.dw.com/en/us-military-in-germany-what-you-need-to-know/a-49998340
But of course the US wants to justify the presence as "protection" of Europe from somebody (read Russia) and so Europe has to pay up. Whereas they could just pick up and go. But then they would lose their influence in Europe.
I hadn't heard that (my fault), so thanks, I'll check it out. I reserve the right to be of the opinion that sometimes "cowboy-like" attitude is appropriate, but "asshole-like" is never, and I don't think it's usually appropriate to piss off too many Germans (or anybody, really, in the realm of ambassodry), but maybe Grenell and DJT were trying to get the Germans to get so mad that THEY kick out the thousands of American soldiers STILL guarding that wall Reagan, I mean the godly Gorbachev, i mean those wonderful Germans, tore down 30 some years ago. Are the planes still dropping supplies into Berlin? Watch out for those Soviet ground to airs!!
Check out Grenell’s side of view point which he talks about on Dave Rubin’s show earlier last year. He talks about Germany specifically. He says because of Germany’s past history, they pretty much offer no support to lots of things including NATO wise. That’s why Grenell wasn’t liked by them. He also hates the UN which is another reason they don’t like him. Imo that’s not his fault, that’s Germany’s fault. I have my own issues with Grenell because he and Mike Pence played a crucial role in getting Assange arrested from the Ecuador embassy.
Here’s the Dave Rubin interview if you are interested:
https://youtu.be/TUL1KzYbEm8
DJT was bringing those troops home, not Joe and 81,000,000 American voters, apparently. Does that piss off germans, too, or do they still enjoy the (U.S. military's) tourism $$$$$s?
If I remember right, he had previously commented how he can’t take too heavy jobs because his cancer might come back and busy jobs prevent him from getting his medical procedures done. That was why he asked trump to only give him a 4 month position and not longer.
You know, I don't think I would have cared if my POTUS couldn't walk because of Polio, either.
Also, 4 more months of CA Gov. Richard Grenell would be as good to me as 1 more year of Rush Limbaugh.
Very well.
Richard Grenell for (the part-time position of) CA Gov.
WOW?? 👀
Years ago I dumped a couple of friends for being hard core Obama supporters. Talking to them was like talking to a scientologist...there was just too much adoration and zero rationality. I swear they were probably lighting candles every night in their Barack shrine.
Get back in touch with them, apologize for "dumping" them, and see if they have changed their mind: I swear, I think lots of people are changing their minds about "Zeit gheist" (sp?) type issues.
I had a friend who called me a race traitor for being more right leaning on things (I am brown and he’s black). I helped this friend several times previously including things like fixing his computer preventing him from losing all his work (no backups). I sometimes wonder if I should contact him again but I am reluctant because I can’t stand someone who would call me a race traitor.
Things change slowly, even individuals.
What's that old saw? Hold on loosely, but don't let go.
Right, and so if those who did the wrong thing contact you you definitely respond and help and all that. They might have changed, or maybe even not, but they need help and as long as it's not blatant exploitation then it's fine. But I wouldn't (and don't) do that first if I truly did nothing wrong.
I doubt it. Worshipping Obama is tied to their belief that to criticize Obama is racist. They are too cowardly, self-righteous and programmed to fairly criticize Obama.
Is one of them Joe Rogan? The way he talks about Obama is close to disturbing.
Rogan thinks that anyone who speaks eloquently is president material.... even if they bombed the brown kids in Middle East. He hasn’t learnt his lessons from leaving California where the similar eloquent speaking governor is destroying the state.
So true. That’s the typical politician before Trump. Smooth talking liars. That’s what the masss had been programmed to expect. The truth enraged them - cognitive dissonance was overwhelming.
The most amazing thing is he goes on and on about it even in the face of someone like Gad Saad openly mocking him for doing that.
Leftism is a dogmatic cult. Cults tell their members to cut themselves off from non-believers.
Watch video of how this former social justice warrior left the cult:
https://youtu.be/uVSgVlZjk8c
"People are not vehement about their most certain beliefs, but most vehement about their most uncertain beliefs." Douglas Murray
Well, generalization, but they are true aren't they.
I'm with you on all of the above. Wanting to have a discussion instead of agreeing hook line & sinker with their ideology gets you labeled a terf or a bigot. I follow numerous trans individuals online who are very matter of fact about the reality of their biolog, want to protect children from early medicalization, and are also concerned about women's rights. They also express concern that the radical transactivists will trigger a backlash.
Those who feed on young kids, reenforcing their temporary gender confusion, encouraging them to take hormones, are truly scum of the earth. The damage they inflict on the kids and the guilt they impose on their parents is criminal.
Gender reassignment surgery and hormone therapy is big money. Just like big pharma, etc
Thanks for mentioning the guilt on parents. I think most (vast majority) of hetero parents today spend huge amounts of time worrying about helping their possibly gay children to find happiness AND fairness. Same thing really for the straight kids before they know they are straight. (Especially sons, sorry Moms, just thinking back how hard it was for this boy nerd, who knew he hetero from early on.)
And gay parents, who are obviously just as capable, feel the same guilt/angst, not a whit of diff.
Actually children do better with their biological parents.
Agreed, statistically, but the gay parents I know are just as good for their children as I am for mine. They deserve full parental rights, too.
But that’s because it looked at from the perspective of the parents not the children who are turned in to a commodity and separated from their biological parents and biological family.
For one major reason: they don’t want, as Glenn said, ANY questioning or criticisms. You either 100% support their agenda or you are the enemy.
Even just the suggestion that a certain percent of teenage girls appear to be making rash and permanent decisions about their bodies chemically and surgically when in actuality “some” are going along to get along with a clique they want to be part of or pressure from certain peer groups they think are “cool”. Just BEING a normal teenage boy or girl is practically schizophrenic at times anyway!
A young person can someday have an idiotic tattoo removed, but reversing the hormones and having breasts and reproductive organs changed is another story.
Which is probably why there should be a standardized age of consent agreed on by society where a child must turn 18 to make body changes that are life-altering.
That is a statistic I would like to see: How many teens who came to believe they wanted to transition to another sex “grew out of that phase” in time and are happy they waited?
Visit www.rodfleming.com for statistics
The problem with that would be that 18 is later than people prefer to start, if they really are certain they want to transition. Some of the body changes that have happened by that point are also irreversible.
There used to be a "gatekeeper" system whereby in order to start transitioning medically, you had to convince a doctor that you were serious. That system has been abandoned for obvious good reasons; clearly the final decision should rest with the individual. But nothing else has emerged to play the role of getting vulnerable, anguished teens to stop and think carefully before proceeding.
Boys an take birth control pills around 12 years old. If they change their minds all they have to do is stop taking the birth control pills and the will masculinize.
Girls can not do that. The effects of taking testosterone is irreversible. Girls must wait to see if they grow out of their feelings of gender dysmorphia.
What percentages of various youth categories are we looking at. I need some statistics to put things in perspective.
Considering that I've seen some convincing transsexuals who relied on surfaces alone - clothing, hair, mannerisms - I think your claim is unconvincing.
And even if you're right, what about those who make a mistake? Why would we think 14 year olds actually kno wwho they are? Discovering that is a feature of adolescence.
Have you seen the Dave Chappelle car full of LGBTQA+ people? I found it absolutely hilarious and sadly nailed a lot of stereotypes that some of my trans/gay friends have.
He points out how it was OK for him to say the N word but not the F word.
It's hard for us cisgender folks to imagine what it's like to grow up and realize you're in the wrong kind of body. I do try to imagine, and I've read some autobiographical accounts (notably that by Lynn Conway -- highly recommended, and easily found online). But clearly, it is excruciatingly painful.
First there's simply the pain of feeling that something is terribly wrong, that you're different from everyone else in some way that you probably can't conceptualize, never mind express, at first. But that's just the beginning. Once you do start to express it, you get a tremendous amount of pushback from those close to you -- starting with your parents, unless you're very lucky. People have come to know you and think of you and relate to you as one gender, and now you tell them that you're really the other; they're just naturally going to resist that. Indeed, it would take a tremendous effort of will for them not to do so. Most of them probably won't make that effort.
People who come out as gay have certainly experienced the same kind of pressures and rejections, but I suspect that on average, it's quite a bit worse for transgenders. So much of how we view and respond to one another interpersonally has to do with gender -- it's so deeply embedded and largely subconscious. Yes, that's also true of sexuality, but not all of our relationships are sexual, while they are pretty much all affected by gender.
So just imagine, if you will, typical responses of family members to a young girl or teen declaring they're really a boy, or conversely. Those family members are going to have to grieve the loss of the girl or boy they knew; and the stages of grief start with denial, anger, and bargaining, right? And so what these kids hear back is things like "it's just a stage", "you don't really mean it", or even an outright refusal to allow them to even socially transition even as an experiment.
And I suspect that even parents who make a real effort to react well have some trouble with it. I recall a piece somewhere about a trans woman whose son declared that he was actually a trans girl, and even she had to swallow hard because she knew what a tough row to hoe it was going to be!
The point of all this is that I do get, to some extent, why trans activists want everyone to be as supportive as possible and don't want anything expressed that could possibly add to the difficulty and pain of legitimately trans children and teens. They don't want those parents, going through their stages of grief, to have any false hopes on the one hand, or weapons to use against the child on the other.
And yet we do know that some significant fraction of children and teens who explore transitioning eventually change their minds. Getting good numbers is very difficult; I don't think we have any. But it does seem to be more than a rare occurrence; for younger kids, I've seen estimates as high as 2/3, if memory serves. I think the movement needs to come to grips with that fact.
The advice I would offer parents is to try to let your potentially-trans child explore who they are, without pressure either not to transition, or to finish transitioning once they've started. I know it's difficult not to be invested in either outcome; but if you truly love them, that's the best thing you can do for them.
As I commented earlier, anorexia nervosa is a body image dysphoria. A painfully thin girl sees herself as fat and insists she must starve herself more. No parent would stand by and let her “explore” that. It needs to be considered that trans might be psychological, not biological. If trans is appearing in clusters of school kids, it suggests a psychological origin. Rather than playing along, I think we need to figure out how to help gender confused people psychologically. The rush to provide hormones and surgery is so inappropriate.
Agreed, but it's not an easy problem to fix. If a pre-pubescent child decides they're trans, they have some time; they can try on a different gender identity for a couple of years to see how it feels. But once puberty starts to kick in, the clock is ticking: their body is undergoing irreversible hormone-driven changes. I don't know how often it happens that true transgenders don't realize it until puberty, but I've read that it does happen. (Perhaps the frequency is being exaggerated by activists. We need more data.) So the need to persuade vulnerable, anguished teens to slow down and be certain has to be balanced against the need to get true transgenders started on hormones, at least, reasonably quickly -- knowing that we won't always be able to tell which are the true ones.
All the boys have to do is take a birth control pill around the age of 12. The girls have to wait until they are adults before they take any hormones or undergone gender reassignment surgery because the effects of girls taking testosterone are irreversible. Boys taking birth control pills is reversible and will delay the onset of puberty and masculinization. Boys should not have surgery done to their genitals at all or wait till they are adults to decide.
Those might be reasonable recommendations, but I don't think I could support a law to that effect, if that's what you're suggesting. Individual situations vary; if a child socially transitions at 7, let's say, and shows no sign of changing their mind, I don't see why they shouldn't start to transition medically at puberty, or whenever medical considerations dictate. Those kids aren't the ones having a problem.
I could see, perhaps, requiring a waiting period of maybe six months between when someone under 18 asks to start medically transitioning and the time they can actually start. Such a rule would leave the decision in their hands, but force them to take some time to think it over.
I think much depends on what sort of transition. Clothing, hair styles, mannerisms are one thing, because they're reversible. They're a good way to try out a new role. But hormone therapy and, especially, surgery are not fully reversible. I think they should wait at least until a young person is past the age of consent - for one thing, not doing so makes a nonsense of that concept. People have a right to be who they are and to self-determine - once they're old enough to know who that is. Children don't, and sometimes go through radical transformations. Not always, but often enough to be a big factor.
The alarming thing is that apparently nuance - or the slightest questioning of the latest dogma - is not allowed.
Clothing, hairstyle and mannerisms have NOTHING TO DO WITH GENDER OR BIOLOGICAL SEX. They are personal preferences, usually learned, not innate. Nobody is born with a brain wired to wear a dress or pants. In some countries/religious sects - there is no choice in what to wear. In some tribes there is no clothing. Firm handshakes are learned, not innate. The ability to throw a ball is learned, not innate. Some have better muscle development and eye-hand coordination, but without learning and practice, one doesn't get better. This is all so effing stupid.
Interesting discussion on these issues between Andrew Sullivan and Trans Activist, Mara Keisling on Sullivan's podcast, the "Dishcast" https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/mara-keisling-on-the-trans-debate?r=lp4e&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=copy
You can read all about it at www.rodfleming.com
What kind of ‘gay’ man are you? What is your sexuality? What is your gender expression? What is your biological sex? Are you a bottom or a top?
"What is it about transgenderism that has turned its advocates to totalitarianists?" As someone who's been around transwomen off and on for 40 years, I can verify that "totalitarianism" is baked in. Aggressive and narcissistic transwomen are the norm, not the exception. The difference now is that these people are being given power by those who seek to divide the country and sap its energy on garbage disputes.
Perhaps unknowingly, you answered your own question by pointing out that the furor is mainly from trans women. Perhaps it's the residual effect of years of "pre-trans" testosterone.
It’s from Autogynephiles not the homosexual transexuals.
"Perhaps it's the residual effect of years of "pre-trans" testosterone."
Hmm...Interesting comment to me, because "testosterone" is science, and "pre-trans" is a quite subjective term, imo.
Pre-transitioning
Here's my view on the "trans debate" as a "classical liberal":
Reasonable people don't care how anyone chooses to identify. As far as I'm concerned, everyone should be free to identify as a man, woman, non-binary or a turnip. The problems start when people try to force their views on others. You can identify however you want, but you have zero right to force me to accept or acknowledge your beliefs. Your subjective "lived experience" means nothing to me. We all have lived experiences - its called life.
The problem with the whole "trans movement" is that by its very nature it attracts the most mentally disturbed, confused and identity-obsessed people, from a pool of already mentally disturbed, confused and identify obsessed "crt" cultists, to its banner. The worst of the worst. These people aren't interested in living their own lives with their own identities, free from molestation. They are mentally damaged people who are obsessed with having their bizarre beliefs validated and respected by everyone. Nobody is owed or entitled to validation or respect. Respect is earned, and the way these people behave does the opposite of earn respect. They are cultists who lash out blindly and viciously at anyone who doesn't uncritically accept their dogma.
And that's the crux of Glenn's heresy and why he is absurdly being painted as "transphobic". He asked a question about the results of a poll. In doing so, he attempted to inject some objective reality into the "debate", and there is no greater crime to these people. Nothing strikes at the heart of faith-based belief like the injection of objective reality and critical thinking, no matter how innocently or unobtrusively it is done.
Yes, the sith lords of social media take any sort of non-compliance as opposition. If you are not 100% in support of everything some of them post, you are some sort of redneck who needs re-programming.
Tolerance used to be something liberals preached. Now it is used to club people into submission through the mob of social media.
I think the term "ditto heads" would be appropriate here
You are wrong. In honor of Rush Limbaugh, who is no longer around to do so himself, I would gladly tell you exactly what "ditto" means to the Rush Limbaugh audience. I don't think you've ever heard this truth.
Another issue is having taxpayers finance any chemical or surgical treatments for someone to physically be changed. I don’t see these physical transitions as “medically necessary”.
I think psychological counseling or psychiatry should be covered but the rest should be financed personally or through a GoFundMe page.
If I want to see a plastic surgeon for a facelift or breast enhancement or a tummy tuck to wipe 20 years off my appearance, who cares? But I have to shell out the money personally because it is not a medical necessity. It’s a mental problem I have with aging. I can fix it with a surgeon or get therapy. And the cost will be born by me.
I have read where taxpayers are footing medical/surgical bills for prisoners who “need” to make the changes.
Here is another question: if a poll were done with the Boomer generation, how would the same questions from the Gallup survey come out? How have Boomers dealt with these issues from the 1950’s until now?
Certainly that's an important issue, and I agree that elective surgery should not be covered or subsidized by taxpayers.
The other important issue, as pointed out by Glenn in his video, is their treatment of children. As an adult, you should be free to identify as anything you want and all people should have the same legal rights regardless of how they identify. This is not a license for child abuse. Permanent, life-altering medical procedures for children be outlawed. Anyone who thinks a child has the sophistication to make a decision about permanent, life-altering elective surgery is not fit to be a parent. Sickeningly, children as young as 3 years old are being subjected to this kind of abuse. This sort of child abuse should be a crime and the people inflicting this mental and physical abuse on their children should be put in prison.
A number Christian mobs do the same thing. It seems to be all over the place.
All fundamentalists operate in a similar manner. Adherence to dogma and faith-based beliefs are all that matter. Heretics and non-believers are enemies that must be crushed. The big difference between Christians and trans-activists is that the levers of cultural and political power in the United States in 2021 are held by trans-activists and those sympathetic to their cultish ideology. They also have the full support of corporate power, which has actively sought to weaponize identity-fetishism to polarize poor and working people against each to preclude any class-based solidarity.
And, Christians, whose ideology is 2000 years (more or less!) old, have matured in ways other spiritually motivated human groups have not. That's not to say those younger groups (including trans-activists) are not valid and righteous, but gee whiz, today's Cristian "fundamentalists" are NOT yester-century's Crusaders. The Christians are NOT "crushing" any "enemies" today, certainly not the way certain "cancellorian" and "censorian" Fundamentalists are.
"Christian mobs"?!?!?
Where are they! Let me at them!
Are you talking about those Christian hordes holing up in large buildings with crosses on them most any Sunday?
Or maybe that mob of Christian kids from Kentucky that day in D.C. that scared that native into banging his drum so loudly?
Are you sure about that?
"Nothing strikes at the heart of faith-based belief like the injection of objective reality and critical thinking, no matter how innocently or unobtrusively it is done." You nailed it, bravo!!
A problem for Glenn is that he supports and uses the term islamophobia (and probably homophobia), which is applied in the same way as transphobia is applied to him here. Either you believe in these insipid terms, or you don't. You can't have it both ways. Glenn makes good points in this article, but as others have pointed out, all the credentialing falls flat because he won't break with these monstrous people.
Hi Glenn, I just subscribed for the first time after watching your excellent video.
I'm probably a lot younger than your other subscribers (gen Z) and am also a trans woman, and I wanted to say that I completely agree with everything you said in this post and also your video. I've been following your tweets and writings for about a year and I have never seen you write anything that any rational person would consider transphobic. The massive expansion of what is considered "transphobic" (and who is considered "trans" to begin with) among my generation is something I first noticed occurring on Tumblr in the mid-2010s and has now made the jump to mainstream liberal discourse on Twitter and the corporate media.
As you said in the video, I think generally the increase in people identifying as bi or trans is due to increased social acceptance of the concept that these things are a spectrum and that many people place themselves on that spectrum instead of at the poles, but also that there is an unsual trend in people who would have once called themselves lesbians now calling themselves trans men (a trend that does not seem to exist in the opposite direction, i.e. gay men now calling themselves women) and it's worth investigating why that is. Anecdotally, I have seen significant social pressure for girls to identify as male, and as you said, there is overwhelming and widely-documented pressure to claim an oppressed identity so that you can fit into modern progressive spaces ("I'm not a straight white male, I'm a bisexual nonbinary!").
I laughed at your bit at the end discussing the bearded rich white boy who calls himself "nonbinary" because this is exactly the sort of thing I've discussed with friends -- but always in hushed tones. Saying this stuff in front of the wrong people would get me exiled from every social group I'm part of.
Anyway, thank you sir for your continued attempts at rationally examining and asking questions about important issues in our culture, from gender/sexuality to civil liberties, and I'm happy to join your community.
Thank you for joining this community and for sharing your thoughts. A diversity of voices is a good thing.
Where is the biological scientific evidence that gender is a sliding scale? This seems to me to be an invented concept by social “scientists” to legitimize psychopathology.
Everything in Nature is directed toward one thing—-reproduction. Why would Nature include a sectrum of genders such that a portion of the population is uninterested in reproducing? Extinction is very a goal in Nature.
Does transgenderism exist in other species?
Ancient Greek art reveals that homosexuality has been a phenomenon for thousands of years. While no gay gene has ever been found, it appears to be a stable, minor biological event. Until there is some sort of biological evidence for transgenderism, I remain skeptical that it is more than a body image disphoria, like anorexia nervosa.
I mean to say that the way people *express* their gender is a scale, from masculine to feminine. Obviously, biological sex is not a spectrum.
How about I “express” my age as 70 1/2. Can I go to the Social Security office and demand to receive my full benefits? Why do people who “express” a gender expect to be treated special in society?
A way to think about it is like this: if I walk down the street and get catcalled by a man, he isn't doing it because of my sex, my chromosomal makeup, which he doesn't know. He's doing it based on my appearance, as someone who appears female. Biological sex is important in some situations (medicine, sport, etc), but in the vast majority of human interaction we base our perception of someone's gender solely on what they look like, not a test of their DNA.
For something like Social Security, the reason we give SS benefits to people is because they're too old to work; that getting old limits your physical ability to do labor. If you're a younger person, and you can't work because of a disability, you're entitled to government benefits too. It's not about age, it's about ability, but in lieu of a way to test people's ability to work we just decided to use age as the cutoff for SS benefits. It's not a perfect system.
I don’t find your reply persuasive. What does a man on the street have to do with your gender identity? This is something you know about yourself. So a man cat calls you. So what? That doesn’t turn a man into a woman. Check between your legs, sir. It’s still there.
I used the social security example to show how I can, like you, decide what I am. I decide I am 70 1/2 years old. But who will believe that? No one. My biology says otherwise. And SS will not indulge my delusion.
I still do not understand what makes you special such that you can defy biology.
The way others perceive you is central to the entire concept of identity, and is part of why identity politics is so toxic in the first place. "Race," for example, is just the way society views your skin color in relation to other people's skin colors; we don't really have any internal perception of our "race." Yet we have entire legal and social structures based entirely around your skin color.
We don't fully have an answer as to whether trans people originate from a mental condition or simply some kind of subconscious impulse, but either way the result is the same: people who (in theory) are socially indistinguishable from biological members of the same sex.
Another concrete real-world example of what I mean is the public restroom. I use the women's restroom because I'm socially indistinguishable from other women. If I used the men's room people would be very confused. The gender segregation of these rooms isn't enforced by chromosomes or genitalia, but rather on *appearance*.
If (hypothetically) they installed some sort of genital-scanner on the bathroom door, it would be very strange to result in people like me being forced to go to the men's bathrooms, and transgender men (who have penises and look like men) being forced into the women's bathroom. This would seem counter-intuitive to the goal of ensuring men are not in women's spaces. I'm not asking for special treatment, although I can't speak for everyone.
Visit www.rodfleming.com and you can also search on ‘ladyboys’. You will find photos of gorgeous he-she’s that any red blooded man would whistle at.
They aren’t given social security, they earned it by paying in to the social security system. If they did not work long enough to qualify for social security they can get Medicaid.
Very well said, imo.
Well, age (at least since we started believing the Earth went around the Sun) is quite a bit more objective than gender, unless of course one is sure one has made up one's mind. (I didn't want to use "you" for "one", if you know what i mean.)
Check out what happens to "age" in relation to the speed of light, gravity, and other such things. For example, you and I will age different based on how far we are from a center of gravity - like Earth!
TL:DR: reality is fucked up.
Oh, yes! Physics and I go way back.
Got a laugh from TL:DR. Is that the modern term for "time dilation."?!
Meaning I meant no offense.
No. The way they express their gender is directly tied to the sex partner they want to attract - dominant type that desires to penetrate or submissive type that wants to be penetrated
Oh dear. Firstly your confusing gender and biological sex. gender is a social construct, it's how you experience yourself as masculine, femaine or something else. (Race, academic qualifications, social class and identifying as LGBTQ vs straight are also social constructs). A social construct is something that doesn't really exist in a biological way, it exists as a social reality that has huge power, but at the same time is illusory and can be dramatically different in a different society, or time.
A lot of other cultures and time periods have had different idea's about gender, and many traditional societies have a third gender which they understand in various different ways. An example would be the fa'afafine in Samoa (biologically male children raised as girls because their families wanted/needed a daughter, who live their lives as women). I understand that some indigenous american cultures have a third gender and their is a concept of this in Indian hinduism.
Biological sex is something different (though when you start to look into the science around biological sex you find that a lot of people don't fit neatly into either the typical female or typical male box biologically, a lot of people have more then one set of chromosomes for example). Some scientists working in this area believe that it is more accurate to understand biological sex as more of a continuum as well, and some would say that that was a bit of a stretch.
Of course homosexuality has been around forever, (and their is lots of evidence of it in the animal community too among horses, parrots, adolescent male lions to name but a few), but having part of your identity built around same sex attraction and activity is actually a pretty new phenomena. If you look at 18th century europe, their was plenty of people having gay sex, but no one thought of themselves as gay or straight.
Gender is not a social construct, It is innate. Gender is how you signal to others whether you are dominate or submissive aka whether you want to penetrate or be penetrated aka masculine or feminine.
The new gay males are faking it pretending ‘their’ sex/‘third sex’ is egalitarian. They end up being a bevy of bottoms hoping to find that elusive top.
Read more at www.rodfleming.com
Their is no Native American tradition of a third sex. The woman who claimed this about Native Americans admitted she had made it up. She called it ‘twin spirit’. Lots of people will make false claims to get attention or ignorance or because they cling to wrong ideas.
Very few people are intersex - it’s quite rare so no to lots of XX, XY variants. They exist, but they are very rare.
Moreover its more accurate to say that biological sex is identified - not assigned. It’s obvious if baby is a boy or girl unless they were born with an abnormality. In that case they can have their DNA tested. If they have a Y chromosome they are male regardless of the configuration or ‘X’s’ and ‘Y’s’.
You are confusing homosexuality / same sex attraction with hierarchical fights for dominance. What is happening with the animals is a competition of dominance and submission. Instead of a fight to the death one chooses to be submissive and be penetrated. That isn’t homosexuality. ‘Gay’ can be hierarchical, narcissistic, pederastic, pedophilic, age oriented, youth oriented, social, situational, political but not so often homosexual. The only true homosexual is a homosexual transexual who is a woman trapped in a man’s body who desires to have sex with straight males. The others are something else.....
Huh? 18th century Europe? So outside of the West if you penetrate you are dominate and masculine regardless if you are penetrating a man or woman. If you want to be penetrated you are submissive and feminine. Your biological sex doesn’t matter. Sex and gender are binary.
Visit www.rodfleming.com to read about the interaction of the New Gay Male, post-modernism, communism and much more. It’s the most fascinating corner of the internet.
I forgot to mention transgressive. Lots of LGBTQ folks are transgressives and want to upset society and destroy it and replace it with a communist utopia....
In your opinion how widespread, what percentage.
I’ve only seen a little bit of statistics breaking down LGBTQ into various categories. But certainly the idea that sexuality or gender is not binary and that ‘gays’ are a third sex or third gender is transgressive as it is also false.
I'm sorry but this is all just not true.
All this back and forth discussion with anecdote presented as data proves my original point. We just don’t know enough about transgenderism. Is it biological or is it psychological? In the meantime, advocates are pushing hormones on adolescents, altering them for life. The Hippocratic Oath says— First, do no harm.
What was being depicted in Ancient Greece was pederasty.
Gender is binary - feminine or masculine which is aligned with sexuality - wants to penetrate or wants to penetrate
Read more at www.rodfleming.com
Wants to Penetrate or wants to be penetrated.
What about helping a disabled friend relieve some...."pressure"?
Because Human Beings are unique in our experience, in being the only known sentient species, and therefore the only ones aware of something called spirit, or non-material nature (call it mind or soul, if you want).
It just doesn't seem to me out of the ordinary, or not-to-be-expected, that our species would not SOLELY evolve in animal (as you say, reproductive) ways.
And that is not offensive to us breeders.
Mistakes happen all of the time. After all the basis for life is mutating viruses and bacteria.... those mutations being mistakes in the replication of genetic code. Those ‘mistakes’ can be beneficial, harmful or have no affect.
Wait I think the "not" in front of "SOLELY" shouldn't be there.
Hmmm, interesting take. Maybe we sentient spiritual beings are the only ones who suffer from psychopathologies too.
Perhaps, but "psychopathologies"? Maybe I'm being a snowflake, but that word seems over-negative, if not overwrought, in this context, or maybe we just disagree.
it’s just a clinical term
I agree! I think the shift in lesbians who might explore transitioning to non binary or male growing at a higher rate than gay men who might transition to female or non binary might be explained by the power dynamic between men and women.
In this current generation where it’s becoming more and more accepted to transition, young lesbians could become less common while young gay men have a more solid population. I think it has to do with the fact that being a male is still more powerful in this society than being a woman unfortunately. You see the wage gap, the abortion issue, women’s issues often have less importance than men’s, often baby boys are still preferred. Woman are still less powerful and because of this discrepancy you will see the tendency to stay male or become male in the general population because of the benefits of being male. If our society had a way where everyone was really equal, then my guess is that these trends would not favor the male and you would see more equal ratios.
My teen has a close friend who transitioned and I’m so happy my teen was so accepting of this change, it was as if nothing changed at all, they are still close friends. He had to remind me about the change in pronouns very matter of factly in the beginning because I was so used to the previous pronouns.
The only thing I worry about is reproduction in later years. Growing up I could care less about having kids. I thought I never ever wanted kids.. I was against having kids for so many reasons. Then.. I hit my 30’s and boom! I wanted a baby so bad! What if I had transitioned and lost the ability to have a child? I know adoption is always an option but when you are economically challenged it could be very hard to adopt. Even with my ability to have a baby it took years of trying. The idea to transition as a young person is a very serious decision and needs to be thoroughly investigated before any steps to are made to take away a chance to have a baby naturally later in life. This is one thing I worry about for my teen’s friend future.
Love your "name," M. Edelgard von Hresvelg! Will you teach me the pronunciation?
Before I search for any meaning in it, would you care to say?
It's a character from Fire Emblem: Three Houses; when I first registered my account I was using my real first name and then decided against it... the last thing I need is people I know finding this account and cancelling me too!
I will tell my 3 teenagers. They play, and I have seen!!
Also, I totally respect your wish for anonymity. Please don't take this as posturing, because it is just for me, but I turned 60 in January, and since everyone else seemed to be being canceled or censored, I decided to start using my real name before I was, too. Maybe I can become famous (infamous?) before I "disappear"!!
Welcome and thank you for the thoughtful post!
I have questions, too.
1) What do the words "male" and "female" or "man" and "woman" actually mean at this point? If a man feels like he's really a woman, but doesn't transition physically in any way, takes no hormones, maybe even doesn't dress as a woman, and still prefers women as sexual partners, but simply says, "I identify as a woman," what, exactly, is he identifying as?
2) Aren't the genders becoming identified by nothing more than their traditional gender roles, as frilly girls and manly men--stereotypes that earlier generations fought against?
3) What makes radical trans activists "left" in any way? Their agenda is about essentialism over class, and like the Puritans, they don't seem interested in fighting for any general tolerance or universal recognition of rights, but are primarily advancing their own interests. What specific aspects make their program leftist?
I have asked similar questions of many people for quite some time. At present, as best as I can tell, the answers seem to be:
1) Nothing and anything. Much like the dictionary rewrite of "racism," the overnight political vilification of "sexual preference," and the linguistic flailing around "defund" and "abolish," the postmodern cult constantly violates language to prop up its absurdist narratives.
2) Yes. "I like pink and am attracted to boys: ergo I am a girl!" How very progressive.
3) Tricky one because of the mercurial nomenclature (see #1) and multiple complex reasons. I think honestly we'd have to figure out what we even mean by "left" nowadays.
Left used to mean anti-war but now that the Dems are back to bombing Syria again (didn’t take long), I don’t see how any Democrat can claim to be left and support more needless wars. Biden is handing out big military contracts already to Egypt etc. And on and on it goes.
Anti-establishment means anti-war. Trump is anti-establishment in word and deed - no new wars under trump and draw downs everywhere. No wonder why they hated him so much. He cut in to their profits.
Same with abortion. It’s a huge money maker.
Same with hydroxychloriquine - it’s cheap and cures COVID but Big Pharma wants to sell Billions of dollars worth of ‘vaccines’ with zero liability. Visit the Children’s Heath Defense for more info - Robert Kennedy, Jr
You were wrong to believe that the left don’t believe in and starting wars. Just look at China, Russia, the Soviet Union, Iran, NAZI germany...
or in the US any of the wars and intrusions over the past 50+ years. The Establishment is all for wars because war is big money and whether it’s bombs or black markets or NGOs/religious organizations everyone feasts off of the national treasury and the blood of young men. Same thing with illegal immigration / human trafficking.
So true! 4 years, and NO military deployment, or increase, and plenty of responsible (imo) drawdown under that "warmongering" Republican.
It took the "peace and unity" Democrat 37 days to start empiring. (A little unfairness by me here, since it's a Mideast tit-for-tat thing, like that perfect, no-collateral-damage-except-the-usual-blowback assassination.)
Speaking of blowback, GET OUT OF IRAQ.
True. I really believe part of our problem is that our linguistic networks of understanding are completley borked.
These things are hard to define by nature PLUS we all seem to hold often radically different definitions PLUS even internally we may be in error or outdated in our classifications PLUS we have media and big tech working to sow discord and disinformation like it's their jo--well ok it IS their job atm.
It's a mess...
And I can't believe we are really getting Neera Tanden again of all people smh
I think Manchin will kill it.
I hope so: Tanden is the posterchild for wall street warmongers
Otoh, give the duly elected POTUS his staffers.
We'll hoist them on their own petards, a la that NY crime family.
For many, the right correlates with conservative instead of liberal values. They are the only words that post modernism will take at their literal meaning. It is mind numbingly irritating that the left appropriated liberal from the right and the right decided that they were okay with that. Fucking idiots all around. Classic liberal values in the hands of authoritarians are just lip service without individual liberty.
Sounds about right to me!
Being called a TERF is not unlike being called a Kremlin asset: if it hasn’t happened to you at some point, you haven’t really lived!
I hope "Putin-bot" also counts? I have been called that at least once! Yay!
Does this have to do with GG "liking" this comment, while apparently not liking the previous exact-same comment? (9-2, currently, in favor of GG's favor.)
Of course it has, this is my best chance ever to get that like, so please don't spoil it!! :-)
Wouldn't think of it! Hearted for ambition alone!
And I hearted BOTH M. Nenad Lovic identical-but-for-GG-favor posts myself, just to make sure I appear unbiased. Am I fooling everybody?
I’m missing something - did somebody already say the same thing before me? What’s all this about? 🙃
Holy shit and fucking A, GG! you write "If I, with these views, am a bigoted enemy of the trans movement, then who are its allies? Do many of those who form this movement even want allies? "
Before that you signal your - self presumed - bona fides on trans issues. "Like, wow, mang, I am on your side! Why do you criticize me?"
You are just as pathetic and virtual signaling as is Taibbi. You can't resist offering up your credentials to demo that you are "one of the good guys".
Don't fucking do that. Just write what you think, and let the chips - and shit - fall where it will. Let you supported opinion stand on its own.
As soon as you attempt to present your credentials, you've lost the battle. I cannot, I CANNOT believe I( nee to explain this shit to guys as smarter as I thought your were.
Don't be a pussy, Glenn.
I addressed that specifically. You’re assuming I don’t hold the views I said I do here. I do. I have spent years saying them. I would never apologize for expressing my views - and I didn’t remotely apologize here and I don’t — but I’m also not going to let people distort what I think. I said what my views are on trans issues to illustrate the bad faith nature of these accusations and to highlight how little deviation from their dogma is needed for these vilification campaigns to be launched, not in order to appease anyone or try to convince anyone of anything.
You say “just write what you think and let the chips - and shit - fall where it will,” but I’m not sure you really mean that since that’s exactly what I did but you wanted me to be artificially defiant about it.
Glenn, I really appreciate you commenting here, but I myself kinda said what Running Burning Man said to you to Matt Taibbi :-) I can't speak for others but at a certain point I'm fed up with you and Matt being nice and understanding to these Leftists who just want to abolish all western structures because they're spoiled brats who only really understand - and crave - a kind of totalitarianism I personally don't want to live under. If only their parents had been real parents. But these Leftists are still tantrummy children. And this is what the Left craves/hates, real parents. And I'm fed up with their acting out.
I am an old school leftist (as in - expropriate the bastard's means of production kind), and I don't recognize any of these people that are painted in media or in online opinion universe as leftist at all. They are simply Trojan horse of the establishment and owner class (and as we know, paid by them through various NGO) - once the public gets tired of their noxious groupthink and de-platforming "culture" there will be a huge backlash against them, which will necessarily catch and sweep away real leftists - those who actually think that taxing Jeff Bezos 80% and investing that into run-down schools, neighborhoods, public transport, clean water and other such stuff that benefits poor and communities of color is more beneficial than painting BLM or rainbow flags in front of their corporate offices. Once that happens, they will have decades more of unchallenged rule, change tack and flip from exploiting (fake) "left-wing" useful idiots to exploiting (real) "right-wing" ones.
Couldn’t agree more. “Left” used to mean (and in any “normal” country still does) first and foremost “pro-workers” and “anti-war” (vs “pro-bosses” and “pro-war”). Somehow, though, in the US for a lot of people it has come to mean primarily “100% on board with trans activism” and such. Why? Because we have two major corporate-owned/warmongering parties and pretty much the only differences between them are the “wedge” cultural/social issues like abortion, gay marriage and trans bathrooms. So both parties and their media have redefined what it means to be “left” and “right” by basically taking class and war/peace completely out of the picture. Which allows the new redefined “left”/Dems and “right”/Repubs to wage never-ending cultural wars, riling up their respective bases, while the billionaires and big corporations that own both parties, the entirety of the msm and everything else under the sun make out like bandits at the expense of the people and the planet.
Just a thought: Exploiting anyone, of any political flavor, is kind-of reprehensible.
But, but, but....Your "real leftists" are wrong (imo) to believe that "taxing Jeff Bezos 80% and investing that into run-down schools, neighborhoods, public transport, clean water and other such stuff that benefits poor and communities of color is more beneficial than painting BLM or rainbow flags in front of their corporate offices."
imo, that would be much more destructive of poor communities than anything MarxistLivesMatter could do to them. Jeff Bezos money is MUCH more valuable to the poor if left in Jeff Bezos's hands, since then more of Jeff Bezos's money will be used (whether Jeff Bezos is retired or not) to hire them, thus teaching them to fish, as opposed to feeding them one nourishing meal on the way to the Jeff Bezos's funded riot, which will benefit the poor not at all.
Pensions used to be commonplace along with many other benefits for all large and most medium sized companies and even small companies. That went out the door with globalism and crooked politicians colluding with CEOs and Corporate boards to raid the pension funds to pay for golden parachutes.
What America needs is to make policies that puts America and American workers first. Trump had it right.
Agree with your conclusion, but moving from defined benefit retirement systems (pensions) to defined contribution retirement systems, gave workers much more control AND security. Pensions require the solvency of the institution to be guaranteed (insured) much too far into the future (at least a working lifetime), for it to work well, and pensions are too ripe for fraud and public bankruptcy.
what can you learn from working for mr bezos? does teaching them to fish benefit mr bezos' bottom line?
Agree. But will the Leftist “Biden” regime be able to stop this from happening? They're trying really hard.
You left out ‘not’
As in, "They're NOT trying really hard."? (just need clarification.)
Biden's not leftist. He's a right wing corporatist.
LOL. Just like Obama!
‘Corporatist’ is not right wing.
Hey, hearted DESPITE the parent shade!
Oh, oh, but do I love the word, "tantrummy"!!!! I don't care if it isn't a word, it IS a word now!
Thanks for the reply; I do appreciate that. It seems I did not make myself clear:
"You’re assuming I don’t hold the views I said I do here. " No, I did not assume that at all. Not sure why you think that. But, failing in my own warning, I'll say something in specific response to that accusation: I've followed you in one place or another for years. Sometimes I agree with your take, sometimes not. Much like Matt Taibbi, as to whom I made a similar comment recently. And he objected to my comment, too. I'm absolutely certain that you hold the views you say you do. But for the points you were making, those views are irrelevant - to me, at least.
"I would never apologize for expressing my views - and I didn’t remotely apologize here and I don’t ..." Gawds! I was not suggesting an apologia! Not at all. My point was that you - at least to my reading - hedged the credit you wish folks to give to your views, especially by a certain side of the opinion spectrum, and to insulate yourself in a fashion from potential criticism by what I labeled virtue signaling to preface your opinion. Your opinion should stand or fall on its merits, not on which side of an issue you are on. At least that is my not so humble opinion.
"... but I’m also not going to let people distort what I think". Great. But you know as do the readers and subscribers here that you cannot prevent distortion, at least in the current age. I do not think you can seriously append your political/social/whatever views each and every time you post an opinion. The risk, as I tried to write, was in undercutting the merits of your opinion by saying, in so many ways "I'm a friend". Again, IMNSHO.
"I said what my views are on trans issues to illustrate the bad faith nature of these accusations and to highlight how little deviation from their dogma is needed for these vilification campaigns to be launched, not in order to appease anyone or try to convince anyone of anything." This is toughest for me to respond to. That is a legit point in my view (if that matters). But you are a very good writer, an excellent researcher, with a long public history. As you yourself wrote "I am fortunate enough to have a long enough body of work, a large enough readership which trusts my integrity even when they disagree with my views, and a strong and independent enough platform that renders me largely immune at this point from the effects of such reputational attacks." But, GG, what about folks who are just passersby? Mere citizens? Those whose views may not be as enlightened as yours? This with only marginally different take? Can they ask questions? Can they posit the very inquiries you did and be treated as human? Or does everyone need a "vaccination against bigotry card"? If so, we are doomed. Best in my view to not play that game.
"journalists in the liberal sector of media along with left/liberal activists accused me ... [and]Twitter’s new team of extremely politicized editorialists summarized the trending term this way" [your a shit, GG]". OK, Twitter. You cannot fight it. You cannot. Not sure you should even try. But if you do, try on that platform or ignore it.
Long story short, thanks, again, for the reply. Hope my further response clarifies things. If it is isn't clear here, I just hate the bullshit that spews out these days but do not think posting one's bona fides based on personal beliefs and alignment rather than reason is gonna solve anything.
Thanks, again.
RBM
I think I understand what you are saying. Glen starts by identifying himself as part of the group, as if he doesn't want to be identified as a unique individual that has his own beliefs that mark him as “different” or an “other”. Instead of just saying I believe in this or that, he's trying to appeal to the group’s definitions of what a member should believe. Only after he sets those boundaries for why he's part of the group, or should be part, he goes on to give his personal opinions. It's like a request to be respected by that group. I don't think it's an apology, just an request.
yes, the dogmatic mobbing irrespective of who 'transgresses' was the other issue. too taboo?
Thank you, GG, for piping in to the commentary.
I actually agree with both you as well as the person you are replying to Running Burning Man. I understand your take. But I also understand their take which is that one cannot reason with an irrational crowd which only uses emotional manipulation to attack their enemies. However Running Burning Man should also understand that you putting out this video and this article isn’t really you reasoning with the irrational crowd, it’s actually to try to change the mind and give a voice to the audience who are watching this whole thing go down while too afraid to speak up.
the mobbing in this respect could be a conservative impulse to 'pendulise' stuff (exaggerate to provoke a counter movement) and there could be this slight sm-need for taboo to keep things exciting. you also probably outed/guilted a few people.
I prefer the imagery of shit splattering where it may... seems more apt
Nonsense. His character is being maligned it's totally appropriate for him to point to his actual documented position on these issues to contextualize his rebuttal. Especially since it's relevant to one of the points he's making about the counterproductive ways in which these groups engage in advocacy.
I think apologizing is not the way to go, but I didn’t read Glenn’s remarks as any kind of apology. My sense is there are many, many people who have never heard of Glenn and this is his first opportunity to introduce himself to them. Explaining what he thinks gives him a way to make his point about the dangers of these attempts to silence people.
As I wrote below, ultimately this cancel campaign is not about the substance of people’s particular tweets or remarks. It’s about the establishment leveraging outrage, real or manufactured, to maintain its authority over who it allows to speak. The people complaining about Glenn or Matt or anyone else we see in the news are not the ones with control. They can only demand that those with actual control silence people.
Right now we’re in a historical moment when the interests of establishment and the woke seem to coincide and this might last for some time, some years actually. But if and when the establishment is finished with using the woke or if the woke change their target to include establishment power, then the woke will be tossed aside. History is filled with this phenomenon. See Aung San Sun Kyi being tossed after looking the other way at military atrocities; look at the Egyptian liberals repressed by their military after they looked the way or cheered when the military overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood. The list is long. The woke are headed there.
Apologising is never the way to go. The mob always see apologies as both an admission of guilt and a sign of weakness, i.e. an incitement to further attacks.
The British Foreign Office could well be one of the most guilty bunch of shitheads in history; nonetheless their unofficial motto "Never Apologise, Never Explain" is the correct one. Honest people don't need your public self-flagellation and will probably find it more suspicious than the initial accusation, and dishonest people will only abuse it for their own ends. In either case it is counter-productive.
I've never known Glenn to be apologetic in his presentation of the facts as he sees them, but I've only been following him for about 15 years.
I think it's ok to say to any adversary, while in a very public debate, "I am truly sorry if I am wrong, But my opinion is still.....," and then go ahead and re -communicate your argument. How does that NOT advance your public support?
Remember that a real part of Glenn's criticism is this brand of leftism Pushing away their allies. Articulating that you are on the same side is an important part of that criticism.
I actually agree with both you as well as Glenn. I understand Glenn’s take. But I also understand your take which is that one cannot reason with an irrational crowd which only uses emotional manipulation to attack their enemies. However you should also understand that Glenn putting out this video and this article isn’t really him reasoning with the irrational crowd, it’s actually to try to change the mind and give a voice to the audience who are watching this whole thing go down while too afraid to speak up.
On the contrary, when falsely accused it's necessary to state your actual views as clearly as possible, preferably backed up with a record.
In this case, it's the necessary prelude to questioning whether those attacking him even WANT allies - though as a practical matter, most are just carried away with the mob mentality - or pursuing a prior grudge.
The descent of trans-activism into terminal, censorious self-righteousness puzzles and alarms me.
In a perfect world Glenn shouldn't have to establish his stance on issues, because people wouldn't be looking for a shortcut to ignore difficult conversations. But that's the reality of the world we live in.
Each person can decide to what degree they're willing to play the game in the hopes of changing some minds, and to what degree they're happy to just preach to the choir. They're all valid approaches.
If your goal at the end of the day is to try and improve the state of the world, sometimes you have to be willing to suck it up and play the game. Or at the very least, understand the tactic when you see other people do it, rather than just assuming they're being a pussy.
Because I wrote DBAP to GG doesn’t really mean I think he IS one. It is just a fair warning about the slope he might be on. I’d say his history is pretty clear he has not been heretofore. I worry about the slope we all are on.
Don't worry, I totally get that you don't think he is. But you do very much seem to think that this tactic isn't a valid one. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to put words in your mouth.
What I'm saying is that it's a perfectly valid strategy. If you want to reach those people who tune out the moment they think you're "the enemy", then you have to convince them that you're not first. It sucks, but that's reality. And if no one ever tries to get through to these people, then how will their opinions ever be changed?
Running Burning Man totally misunderstands what Glenn did.
You state your bona fides and credentials so that it gives your argument WEIGHT.
The theory of establishing credibility goes back to Aristotle - ethos, establishing a common ground, and/or area of trust.
Who are you going to listen to for medical advice? Some slang thrower on the internet, or an actual doctor?
It's basic Debate Theory 101 "Mang".
If you think that comment is persuasive because it is "basic debate theory" you are living in high school where you get points for technique. This is not high school and points are not awarded for technique. And it is not even debate, hough some may see it that way.
I understood what GG did. I found it lacking as a matter of courage of one's convictions. Convictions, that is as a journalist. Instead, my take was that he was trying to buy credibility by emphasizing his political alignment with a certain interest group who appeared to attack him. That is the sorta shit that the NYT, The New Yawker, WaPo, CNN, Fox, and others in the "traditional" media employ and they cast out those who do not toe that line.
There are two sides (at least) to this issue as the comments here make clear. But what a lively debate erupted.
By the way, you do not get journalistic "weight" by announcing your political alignment with the faction attacking you. You get weight, or as you emphasized, WEIGHT, from the intellectual honesty of your presentation. You know, facts, absence of intrinsic bias, etc.
Yeah if you could kindly refrain from using my anatomy to insult people, that would be great. To everyone else who didn't say a damn thing, come on already.
Is it possible for you to write English and not use profanity?
Sometimes. Depends on my mood. But, what is the issue with "profanity" anyway?
Fuck if I know.
Jesus took the wheel and he frowning in the rear view mirror
Can God blaspheme himself?
"Goddammit! Oh shit."
And the devil inherits the Earth.
Hahahahaha I amuse myself
Why, doesn’t work for you as hoped?!
Ya gonna have to 'plain that reply to me.
LMAO.
Yep. I typed too fast to catch/correct my typos. But I think you got the point. Thx.
GO after the mob mentality, because it should not be allowed to sit at the adults table, let alone speak. There is a kiddie table for the kiddies for a reason. In this context, it sits at the aisle of every grocery store in existence.
Your argument is well-expressed for being so hurried, but I disagree. It's time to face the enemy and be implacable in defense.
The problem for many in facing the enemy with implacable defense is that many individuals will spring straight into attacks that can be carried to your home where your family is and it can become a dangerous situation. I am old enough now that I have lost my will to fight people face to face. Because I tend to say exactly what I believe which could get me in trouble, especially as a conservative leaning person living in Los Angeles. I get lots of dirty looks just walking outside a mall with no mask. I would never want to engage those maddog lookers with dialogue. Things could get ugly fast. But I still smile and stand my ground to walk freely as I go on my way.
I totally agree about always taking risk of this confrontation or that, as well as the cost of a "worst-case scenario," especially when family and friends are part of the equation, into full consideration. And NO individual today should be faulted for wishing to remain anonymous for any number of valid reasons, but not all of us are so vulnerable or constricted, at any given point in time.
Here we have GG stepping up and incurring the extreme risk of which you speak. Your support of him, even in anonymous forum, is hugely important.
I am in position now, with children on the cusp of adulthood, to step up and I plan to do so, to take on more personal risk. If all you have to offer today, because you judge the risk too great, is spiritual support, I think GG and I would gladly accept it.
He’s not - a few years ago trannies couldn’t ride the homo train and some homos spoke up for them.
Now, they want to pretend sexual attraction has nothing to do with biology.
Riding the homo train as a straight trans man or trans woman is clear evidence that the simulation has gone off the rails.
No shit. Like every mother fuckin thing isn’t already geared towards them.... some people just can’t handle being excluded by homos
I want to bring Sigmund Freud back to life just so that we can watch him completely lose his shit. He would dive into the nearest pile of cocaine and never resurface again.
Why do you think he would?
1. He was known for dipping into some cocaine so that isn't a stretch.
2. He was known for studying *aberrant* behavior.
3. 2021 information overload would almost certainly follow.
One type of transgendered is a homosexual transexual. It can be argued that effeminate homosexual males are denying their sexual inversion / transgenderism.
‘Gay’ is an umbrella term - it includes many types of sexuality
Or, it can be argued that a man with effeminate characteristics is no less of a man because of that. There may be markers for what is considered to be transgender. But I am inclined to think that using social constructs for masculine and feminine characteristics as a point of delineation is, at best, regressive.
I have seen videos of people teaching children that liking boy things or girl things is what indicates whether you are correctly gendered or transgender. Regressive may be too kind of a word for that line of thinking. It is shockingly devoid of nuance. It blows me away that I am now defending feminist values and the effeminate men of the world from tyrannical religious zealots. I did not volunteer for that and yet, here I am.
You are conflating biological sex, gender expression and sexuality. Sex is binary. Gender is binary and even sexuality is informed by those same binaries.
Claiming objectivity is white supremecist and only a subjective ‘lived’ experience is authentic or true is post-modernism and it is false.
Not everything is a social construct. That’s just post-modernism.
Gender isn’t a social construct. Biology is real - sex hormones are real. They have real consequences.
I didn't say that *everything* is a social construct but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you knew that when you wrote this. You are deliberately misrepresenting what I said because it is objectively hilarious to suggest that effeminate characteristics in men are a denial of their sexual inversion / transgender ism.
*Note* I realize that humor is inherently subjective but I'm making an effort to include the term, "objectivity" in every response because you erroneously claimed that it is white supremacist.
I would point out that it is postmodernism to do so. Critical Theory has become a parody of itself. It is actually diminishing the value and meaning of language and providing cover for hateful people. It is a comedy of errors that keeps getting worse with every passing day.
Please read: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/beware-the-linguistic-trojan-horse
You deserve an education.
You didn't respond to my critique with anything substantive. I will take that to mean that you believe that effeminate men are really just *sexually* inverted. Or is that term also conflating gender with sexuality? Objectively speaking, I would think that it should be *gender* inversion. If you are going to start your own religion, you will want to make sure that the trans woke orthodoxy is consistent. You also need an authoritative scripture and someone that everyone can rally behind as a prophet and teacher.
"In the beginning was the Word (Logos) and the Word was objectively white supremacist."
- Transactivist Prophet
There is a scale between the masculine - feminine binary.
Homosexual transexuals are sexual inverts and effeminate males. They desire to be penetrated by straight males. Their femininity signals that they desire the opposite - a masculine sex partner and to be penetrated.
No, you don't get to claim that instances of "homosexual transexual," and I knew one who had Klinefelter syndrome back in the 70s, means all gay men with some femme traits are really just transgender. This is the narcissism of transgender ideologues talking. Gay still means biological men who primarily prefer sex with biological men.
Argued by the homosexual male or for the homosexual male that the normies basking in the glow of their approval by Gawd, despite as we have covered their propensity to suck their own dick if they were able?
Why can’t you identity freaks on the left and the right just let people be themselves?
Who is we: voices in your head?
To answer your second question, because YOU won't.
And gay men are now being shamed as transphobic for not being attracted or wanting to sleep with transmen.... even if the transman is missing that ever so important bodily component....
‘Gay’ is an umbrella term.
You keep saying that as if it signifies.
I think M. Pawsative is saying that M. Thomas needs to define "gay men" better for M. Pawsative to be able to know whether to agree or not.
Es mad stupido
Transphobia, like Islamophobia before it, is a word invented specifically to stop discussion of certain pertinent facts while distributing propaganda.
Yes. True in a wider sense, also. I would start "propaphobia" if I could.
Watching the mob try to break/intimidate anyone who doesn't instantaneously display 100% compliance or dares to ask any questions or dig any deeper on any issue is a practice that will soon backfire. I view this as the honeymoon period where a small but vocal group, empowered by the echo-chamber dynamic of social media and the internet as a whole, can use their technical savvy to push and intimidate others into subscribing to the hivemind, or else...
Even here in Portland OR, like myself, most of my friends are liberal but none share the same extreme-left views that appear commonplace on sites like Twitter where, for example, there is a 'common understanding' that if a straight man is not romantically interested in a trans woman, he is thus "transphobic" and needs to be "dragged". This kind of thinking is absolutely insane. Threatening to cancel someone lest they romantically link up with someone they are not attracted to is a very dangerous path to go down, but the woke left seems eager to push everyone down it.
But as the 'woke left' tests the waters to see how far they can push their form of social extremism on society, it will eventually reach a breaking point. It seems like an impossibility (or at least, an improbability) right now, but I am certain eventually this irrational fear of being canceled for not subscribing to whatever the latest bizarro take on moral righteousness is will finally buckle and people will get over their fear of both the intimidation tactics of Twitter mobs and the compliant mainstream media who seems eager to take their editorial cues from whatever morality issue is trending that day.
And for all those reasons I am incredibly grateful to you for being one of the only voices of reason in the media right now. It is a gift to all of us and I am so thankful.
The issue is tweeter and the way the platform encourages group think and narcissistic rage. Many newspaper reporters have tweeter accounts and spend way too much time on the platform. I also live in Portland, OR and when you read any of the local papers you can tell which reporters are on tweeter and are taking sides in yet another woke tweeter war. A local coffee roaster actually went out of business because all the major papers took a stand in what was basically a tweeter war against the coffee roaster. That editors actually let tweeter warriors report woke nonsense is one reason that newspapers in in trouble. The tweeter warrior reporters are breaking the connection between newspapers and the community that they are reporting on.
Just like in the old days a vicious slander or gossip could destroy your village blacksmith or baker (as they would be shunned by the community), same happens in the new "global village" created by technology - same evil tongues can destroy reputations, livelihoods, businesses.
Same people and same motives involved too!
When all you have is an ad hominem, everything looks like a Hitler.
Best way to put it I've heard yet!
Why can't we all just be treated as individuals, equally and not have special rules based on our race, sex, or sexual preferences?
Originally Marxism was meant to use the divide and conquer methodology to put people in the oppressor-oppressed boxes along socio economic lines (rich vs poor). This divide and conquer method has been used for centuries as a way to rule people because people would keep in fighting instead of focusing on the real enemy - the politicians. However a few decades ago, they figured out that they could expand this methodology along other categories too. That’s when the identity politics was born- race, sex, sexual orientation, sexual preference etc all started getting used for oppressor - oppressed dividing and conquering.
Impossible. Just like you *must* place yourself on left/right line and in a correct spot and be treated accordingly. Besides. there's also Russians.
you weren't supposed to leak this email damnit
My favorite commenter.
One of many, for me.
And East Germans. Those athletes still live in Eastern Germany, don't they?
Yes, they are "Ossi" and "Ossis (Easties) are stereotyped as racist, poor and largely influenced by Russian culture,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_states_of_Germany#Culture
Is that why, back when you Russkis were Communist (or should I say "communists" to make the true Marxists stop rolling over in their graves), you were able to "pump up" those East German gals?
I had somebody recently ask me if Russia were Communist still. I'm sure many would insist it is. In any case its name seems to be Putin according to at least one commenter in this forum.
As to pumping up - sure, it's all Russians. Just like novichoks etc. And no, don't try to compare it with someone like Serena Williams - that's different!
Also, amazing how suffering from asthma makes you a better skier: https://www.rt.com/sport/418239-norwegian-olympic-skiing-asthma-diagnosed/
That is, do you believe in clean sports?
There you go again, with your "...at least one commentor in this forum...", hoisting me on my own petard, can I get a TOUCHE!, if not an OUCH!
You argue well, and would it surprise to know I am in general, if not specific, agreement with you on your excellent points.
I concede this argument. Good day, good sir, till we meet again...
That never seemed very fair, in a narrow sports competition kinda way, either.
Of course, THAT competition was ALL about "social justice," to use the modern parlance.
Loved reading this well-written history, M. Andreas Griewank.
That’s was the whole idea when America was founded.
Sounds like a dream!
We're getting there, little by little, since big changes are made trough generations, not years, but decades.
And even, perhaps sadly, through centuries. But celebrate the good centuries, none-the-less; It takes a whole lot of them to counter the bad ones.
Thanks for the comment, Rodney.
Well, maybe we don’t have to but let’s not pretend on the road to where we currently find ourselves the majority population that considers themselves mentally healthy, normal and approved of by their Gawd has countenanced everything from hostile work environments, red lining and housing discrimination to penalty free violence designed to intimidate or maybe just to reinforce the hetero manliness of the afore mentioned normal, mentally healthy, approved by their Gawd fellow citizen who feels empowered to purge polite society of its mentally ill freaks.
Even though we all know you guys would suck your own dicks every day before breakfast if you could and that faux lezzie porno action is a hetero fave.
"you guys would suck your own dicks" - would I? The rest of that statement totally went over my head too.
Aren't you a bit over-dramatic? Have you heard of the term "bullying"? That is, that there's always bullies who would pick on a person's characteristics no matter what? And yes, one of them being sexual preference.
Okay, I'll admit it: I would suck my own dick.
But that doesnt make me gay, does it? I mean, I jerk myself off, but I wouldn't jerk another guy off. I don't think that makes me gay either.
Maybe that makes me bi..? Holy shit, maybe that explains the trend!!!
Thanks for your honesty. But I already knew that. Haha
See? Now THAT is progress.
I am not saying that to indicate you are gay. Merely the hypocrisy of “real” men bashing homos because it goes against nature to suck dick
Yep. Alexander (bi, ive heard?) needed every FIGHTER (even the non-manly men) he could conscript, and had no use for the fairer type of human. Those years and victories would not have happened if the heteros who had NOT learned to satisfy themselves with rosie palm (like I hear Socrates publicly demonstrated?) could not "lean'" on like-disabled comrade, in hand, ass, and mouth. I would have chosen the latter if I had lost my right arm in the previous battle.
I'll delete if tmi.
What say you to these important matters, M. Galleta?
"The rest of that statement totally went over my head too."
You aren't the only one. I feel I need to study it, perhaps consult a psycho-analyst. (And sorry for that ad hominem, M. Galleta, but holy cow!)
The holier than thou, they are all mental types chap my ass.
I am an old homo. I have seen a lot from you mentally healthy, approved by Gawd types. I don’t give a fuck what you think of it either
That's ok to not care what i think.
I'm telling you (and it may be my fault), I want to understand what you are saying, and can you say it in a less threatening way?
Or demeaning way. This hetero doesn't want to demean you. Is it too much to ask the same of you?
Fuck . Off . Asswipe
Yes, you would. In fact, you wish you could but sadly your dick isn’t big enough
Sexy!
ALWAYS a good response! You go, M. russian_bot.
Eat shit asshole
Now, look, with this kind of attitude no wonder you'd get your ass kicked.
Don't do it, M. russian_bot!
No try murdered. Pretty regularly, and then there is the milder shit.
Maybe try not being assholes
"Maybe..."
Is that an olive branch?
Now, I actually wouldn’t support specific hate crime laws because 1) I think AG’s are prosecuting murderers successfully now (as opposed to say when all white juries in the south refused to convict white lynchings) and 2) if it makes it a federal offense the perp gets a better ride in many cases than state prisons. I admit to being too lazy to verify that.
The holier than thou, they are all mental cases types chap my ass.
And yet, in your own crude way, aren't you casting yourself as holier than them?
Yeah. I am a unimpressed homo.
?
M. Galleta is unimpressed with "homo" M. Galleta?! I must be missing SOMETHING.
You missing a lot but iq is a baseline from which one learns
We are in complete agreement!
Doubtful.
At first is was tolerance - that's good. Then it was acceptance - fine with that too. Next you were required to support. Now they are demanding celebration. Next step will be advocacy. It will never be enough.
One of the big things I wonder here is how many of these vocal trans activists who are at 100 on Glenn’s scale are parents, or ever plan to be. I am a millennial, so I have lots of blanket trans rights supporters in my circle of friends. However, I’m a rarity in actually being a parent within that circle. It was an agonizing decision to figure out if we wanted my son to have a circumcision or not - which we ultimately decided isn’t an appropriate thing to decide about someone else’s body. All of this to say, I can’t even imagine how much harder it is to decide what to do if your child or teenager decides they are trans and wants to start hormone therapy or any of the transitional therapies. I am mostly in favor of trans rights - probably an 80-90 on the scale - but if we can’t at least ask what age is appropriate to transition and whether or not the therapists are using coercive tactics to push kids towards becoming trans then I am sorry, but your movement is just ideological zealotry. Just like I would be told I can’t understand the trans experience as a straight white man, I would tell these people they can’t understand being a parent if they have no children. Anyone without a child needs to shut their mouth on this one - they can’t possibly understand what we have to deal with.
IMHO, your job as a parent is not just to love your child but to protect them, and that includes protection from ideological zealots. In my teen years, they came from the Right in the form of Bible Thumpers. Now, they come from the Left in the form of Trans Activists. Let neither intimidate you. They’re all off balance. Your child is a person, not some experiment for anyone’s agenda.
Yes, exactly, and in the end, a human gains full societal freedom when they become an adult, not before (yes, different for different individuals, but 18 years not unreasonable as a societal redline/goal). Before that , we rely on and empower well-meaning parents, as we as a society should, if only since they are automatically closest to the child, and would seem to be the most natural at loving AND protecting. We as society harness that nature.
And it's self-evident that children and especially teens are uniquely susceptible to the sorts of online social pressures that might influence someone to transition when they aren't truly trans.
Don’t forget there are parents that want attention and claim their kids are trans for attention.
And I suspect that many of these parents prefer their child change into a male or female gender stereotype mimicking them than that having a weird gay or lesbian kid.
Most vocal trans activists are Autogynephiles who typically marry and have children before they get older and they can no longer contain their gender dysphoria.
Go to www.rodfleming.com he has sensible advice on hormonal treatments and gender reassignment surgery for transgender children, adolescents and adults.
Well said, fellow parent.
There is no longer a "left v right" juxtaposition. Glenn is under attack because he abandoned the plantation. Therefore, whatever he says, claims, writes, thinks is not just nullified, it is given a negative score ("Shut UP!! They explained"). Heretics must be stoned.
To leftists everywhere: there are always people to whom you are a right-winger. As the right is canceled, >you< come more into the spotlight. The people who keep moving left must rationalize this situation -> you are getting more extremely rightist.
The last one standing on the left will be so far to the left that she will be more right wing than Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Xi, AOC.
There is no centerground to a leftist, because >they< are the center of their universe, and it is a left wing center.
Confused? Don't be. It is not intended to be rational. All that is required is acceptance and compliance, or self-cancelation.
Glenn and Matt are on a journey.
Or, as spit by RTJ:
Funny fact about a cage, they're never built for just one group
So when that cage is done with them and you still poor it come for you
Glenn has Uncle Tom's hat on. And looks like in a cabin, at least in some videos.
A journey to freedom, on a modern Underground Railroad.
It’s hilarious that there are people who question Glenn Greenwald’s commitment to Trans rights and trans people....
So whacked out such people must be, it is hard fathom...
This is the result of being taught to “react” with emotions - the act of discernment (or “thinking”) must be regarded as a “white privilege” thing...
Such people cannot lead for they can barely follow...
I haven't practiced medicine in more than 30 years; when I did, I was a psychiatrist. There are several issues involved here. The first is that we do not know what the long-term effects of puberty-blockers are on children. The second is that puberty begins around 12, bur the pre-frontal cortex, the part of the brain most involved in reasoned decision-making, does not mature until one's mid-twenties. Making irreversible decisions that seriously affect the remainder of one's life without a mature pre-frontal cortex is a form of Russian Roulette. Forcing those decisions on children of fifteen is nothing short of child abuse. I don't have a solution for this.
A few years ago I participated in an on-line forum that dealt with issues facing marginalized people. A transgender character was introduced in the story we all followed and discussed, and I began a comment with "The transgender phenomenon, as old as mankind, . . ." Cue shit-storm. I had insulted all transgenders by using the pejorative "phenomenon" to describe them. Since I was obviously transphobic, I must also be homophobic, and the pile-on occurred. Xenophobic, alt-right bigot, racist, etc, etc. The forum's intolerance, not to mention poor vocabulary, created a hostile space. I quit. Unknown to most, I provided half of the financial support to keep the forum alive. It withered and died.
I have to confess I do not understand transgenderism, nor do I expect ever to be able to. I don't need to. I accept that it's real. Acceptance beats understanding every time.
The left always eats its own. Strangely enough, when I served in the Army in the early ’70s, it was forbidden to be gay. You would be discharged immediately. I knew of several people who were gay, and it was common knowledge. Nobody cared as long as you did your job. What you did off duty and base was your business.
Over the years, things have changed, and now you must publicly accept alternative lifestyles or be skewed in the public arena. The criteria for that public approval are unknown to most of us, as it changes almost daily. Personally, I do not care what anybody’s sexual preference or practice is as long as children are not brought into the mix. Consenting adults is the keyword here.
This is only my opinion, and I accept that it will not be popular here, and that is OK with me. The worst thing for any movement is government involvement by picking winners and losers in these debates. It always ends badly because politicians are corrupt by nature and do what is best for them, and not us.
The mob mentality should not be given any credibility whatsoever, regardsless of such extemporaneous cultural fads as politics.
Agreed, and history shows us what mobs create in their wake.
Congenital victimhood has limitations. The Black activist community doesn't have nearly the common cause with the gay community that certain intersectionalists believe. Recall that in 2013, Bill DeBlasio surprisingly won the Dem primary for NYC mayor over Christine Quinn because blacks overwhelmingly voted for the white guy with the black kid, rather than the LBGTQ candidate who was favored, and a "true victim." Even if they succeed in silencing the Trumpian right (good luck there), they have each other to go after next.
Good Points, well made. Your bottom line sums it all up quite well. We are already watching it unfold.
Well, I for one share the opinions you state here.
Thank you.