[T]he one thing that’s maybe different here is there’s a set of narrow policies, like nondiscrimination, and then a broader cultural effort — everybody should put their pronouns in their bio or say them before they begin speaking at a meeting — that was more about destabilizing the gender binary.And there people had a much stronger view. Like: I do know what it means. I’ve been a man all my life. I’ve been a woman all my life. How dare you tell me how I have to talk about myself or refer to myself!And that made the metaphor break. Because if the gay marriage fight was about what other people do, there was a dimension to this that was about what you do and how you should see yourself or your kids or your society.I think that’s an accurate reflection of the overplaying of the hand in some ways — that we as a coalition went to Trans 201, Trans 301, when people were still at a very much Trans 101 stage....I think some of the cultural mores and norms that started to develop around inclusion of trans people were probably premature for a lot of people. We became absolutist — not just on trans rights but across the progressive movement — and we forgot that in a democracy we have to grapple with where the public authentically is and actually engage with it. Part of this is fostered by social media.We decided that we now have to say and fight for and push for every single perfect policy and cultural norm right now, regardless of whether the public is ready. And I think it misunderstands the role that politicians and, frankly, social movements have in maintaining proximity to public opinion, of walking people to a place....
I will say, while the left made this mistake of fostering an illiberalism based on a false sense of cultural victory, the right is now making the exact same mistake. I think they’re overplaying their hand.
They’re interpreting the 2024 election to be a cultural mandate that is much greater than what it actually is. And if they continue to do that, there will be a backlash to the illiberalism — the cultural illiberalism, not just the legal illiberalism — of the right, in the same way that there’s been a backlash to the cultural illiberalism of the left.
In general people like to be left alone. Making everyone put pronouns out there was not leaving them alone. That wasn't really the issue, though it was aligned to it. Telling parents that the state would take their children away and then castrate their children was intolerable. That's not just the sort of thing that causes you to lose elections; governments get overthrown over things like that. As well they should, since that action violates natural law in such a clear and deep way. Telling fathers they had to watch their daughters beaten up in sports arenas by physically more powerful males was intolerable. Telling parents they would lose their parental rights for not going along with all this was intolerable.
McBride may be correct that the cultural right is going to far the other way. It is good to see some actual reflection on all this, and likewise the admission that they went too far and were in fact illiberal. It's a genuine start.
11 comments:
I think some of the cultural mores and norms that started to develop around inclusion of trans people were probably premature for a lot of people. ...
We decided that we now have to say and fight for and push for every single perfect policy and cultural norm right now, regardless of whether the public is ready.
So, the policies were not bad, and in fact they were pushing for what they view as perfection. It's just the rest of us are Neanderthals, you see.
I do think some on the right are falling into the same thing, alas.
Althouse cites a section that has a telling word: "a false sense of security that the L.G.B.T.Q. movement and the progressive movement writ large began to feel in the postmarriage world." Postmarriage -- the claim that they were expanding it seems to have always been a lie.
It has always been slightly insulting--perhaps deliberately so--to demand that a man tell what his pronoun is. "Am I so un-masculine that you can't tell?"
For the honor of truth, I admit that there is a place for it when you're communicating by email with someone with a name from a different language.
Still, face to face...
"It's a genuine start."
I don't believe it is. It's the same thing, they're just advocating the long march rather than revolution. The left always pendulum swings back and forth (as a group) between these tactics. They're clear that the intent is still the same in the long run, they're just advocating the stretching out of the timeline so the frog doesn't realize it's getting boiled, because right now the frogs are revolting! I end up seeing this (or people like Van Jones) as even more dangerous than the revolutionary types, who always reveal themselves and their evils in their impassioned haste.
Maybe, although maybe they get to the point of recognizing limits they should respect in order to not get driven off the field. For example, I have no wish to make McBride live as a man. There's some reasonable ground in which I'll accept McBride performing as if a woman, combined with a recognition that she's not really a woman. That's not so complex that we couldn't make it work.
I'd even go along with her preferred pronouns, as I am now doing, if she just asked instead of insisted. Respect my rights to say whatever I think is true, but ask me for a courtesy. I can be courteous, as long as the pretense doesn't get as far as "transwomen ARE women," which they plainly aren't.
So you might have to accept a world in which there are men, there are women, and there's a vague third class of people who opt into "trans-*" status. They could even have their own sports leagues if they want. I don't care. I do understand why women don't want to be forced to compete against them. I don't have any objection to them competing in the men's league, but somehow that doesn't generally seem to be the way that push goes. You want to play in the NFL? Give it a shot.
If I remember my PoliSci studies accurately, Kruschev got in trouble with his fellow governing Communists for risking the revolution through "adventurism". He got out ahead of where he should be. McBride sounds like she's talking about the same thing.
The problem with accepting a man who identifies as a woman "performing as if a woman" is that acceptance puts women at risk. Sports is the least of it. Should McBride be in women's locker rooms? In a domestic violence shelter? I don't think so, regardless of the state of his primary sex characteristics.
I would add there the percentage of those who do this are psychologically driven to embarrass and humiliate women is incredibly high, and this is an incredibly good device for that end. I cannot support it in any form, no matter how polite they are to me personally. It's not about me. I don't think it's particularly good for them either, as it's like telling an anorexic she's looking like she gained weight.
I'm not sure who 'anonymous' is here, but I know this is strongly felt by a lot of women so I'll speak to it. I meant, above, that McBride might have to accept a world in which there were three classes: the two natural sex classes and a third class that any trans-* type person could opt into. That class might have its own spaces, sports leagues, etc. if they don't wish to share spaces with men.
In a sense all of us are always in danger, and the world can't be made completely safe; and in another sense, the quest for safety can often be destructive not only to liberty but to virtue. Thus, 'it puts X at risk' is not by itself a sufficient reason to do or not do anything.
Nevertheless, I know from long listening that women like to have their own spaces from which males are excluded, and that this is considered non-negotiable for many of them for reasons that include, but are not limited to, safety. I think that perspective will win out in the end. That doesn't mean that no accommodation whatsoever is possible with trans-* people, but definitely not the one in which we just pretend that there's no difference between transwomen and women.
Sorry. Anonymous there is Elise. The system just doesn't seem to know who I am. I'll see if I can fix that or be more careful about signing my name.
I agree that safety by itself does not override all other considerations but I believe safety does have weight in decisions. The argument for men in women's locker rooms, bathrooms, domestic violence shelters, and prisons seems to be that women's safety is outweighed by men's rights/needs/desires to enter those spaces. I dispute that: women's physical safety weighs more than men's psychological distress.
Beyond safety, I also believe that women's right to privacy - to not be seen unclothed by the opposite sex and to not see the opposite sex unclothed - outweighs men's psychological distress. The laws and arguments against flashers and against Peeping Toms do not disappear because the man in question claims to be a woman.
I accord men the same rights although the situation is not symmetric. I imagine, however, that for a relatively shy adolescent male, having women demanding the right to view him unclothed would be clearly seen as a violation of his privacy. Ditto for some religious men the insistence that they must view unclothed women simply because those women claim to be men.
I would add there the percentage of those who do this are psychologically driven to embarrass and humiliate women is incredibly high, and this is an incredibly good device for that end.
I agree. The trans movement has actually made me stop using the word "patriarchy" exclusively ironically. And an interesting theory I've seen is that the behavior of men who claim to be women may be helping fuel the explosion of girls who claim to be boys - or at least claim to not be girls.
"In a sense all of us are always in danger, and the world can't be made completely safe; and in another sense, the quest for safety can often be destructive not only to liberty but to virtue. Thus, 'it puts X at risk' is not by itself a sufficient reason to do or not do anything."
This seems to me a curious position. Yes the world is dangerous and will always be so. Here we are discussing dangers that we A) have some control over and B) involve persons other than ourselves. I agree with your premise in so far as it applies to personal decisions- I am free to take risks, and should not make decisions simply to avert risk, and to do so would surely involve giving up a degree of my personal freedom and probably virtue. I'm less inclined to think this is *automatically* the preferred course for society in making decisions. Yes, I agree society can also trend too cautious, and we've been doing that for some time, but part of the very purpose of society is to avert or reduce some risks. In matters like this, I don't feel particularly empowered to tell some people they have to lose some safety and take on additional risks for the sake of others. This to me is 'gambling with other people's money' and seems beyond my rights to demand.
Post a Comment