You are engaging in straw man argumentation here. Nobody is "concerned by the existence of trans people" or seek to "eliminate transgender people from daily life" -- what sex realists are concerned about is what they see as the harmful impact of gender identity ideology on *everyone*, including trans-identifying people themselves. And how am I wrong about the distinction between GI and SO when that's an integral part of the ideology--i.e., that gender identity is supposedly completely distinct from sex at birth, when the latter of which is fundamental to the reality of sexual orientation? Your attempt to attribute sex realism to "white cisnormative gay men" who "align" themselves with "rightwing and nationalist" politics is a particularly bad faith argument that not only needlessly brings race into the issue, but displays the very antipathy towards gay people that concerns the LGB Alliance--which, by the way, does not exist to "exclude trans people" but simply to represent the interests of LGB people -- that's all. And I am certainly not seeking to drive a wedge between anyone: I am simply pointing out that it is the institutionalization of this ideology that is driving a wedge between sectors of society, which is resulting in real and problematic social conflict that we need to address to remain true to the principles of multiculturalism. And finally, I did not argue against the idea of the "gendered soul," only that it comprises a comprehensive doctrine and therefore shouldn't be a required part of public education because conflicts about it will be unresolvable, but should instead be a matter left to the private consciences of families.
What is weird to me is that both the gender identity activists and the religious backlash both think that they deserve special consideration in public policy for beliefs without evidence, but just engage in special pleading for their own beliefs without evidence. I have long opposed religion being seen as a special category of belief by legal frameworks and that opposition is part of what motivates my antipathy to the kinds of demands made by gender identity beliefs. Religious people protest teaching evolution in schools with the same logic. "This offends my religious beliefs" is a bad rationale for excluding points of view from classrooms, just as "this doesn't respect my introspective sense of comfort with my sexed body". Religious beliefs and gender identity beliefs should be treated exactly the same by law, policy, and informal tolerance norms. They have the right to believe things, to not be fired or harassed for those beliefs, to sometimes be played along with, but not to have the beliefs made comfortable or make others believe them. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M3rMRjJmUVJWRxMeHEpjQBqmTp73mVo3XE0uE4hUJxQ/edit?usp=sharing
Great article, Michael! Thank you for your clear explanations and excellent examples of thin versus thick ... I might be able to convince some if my less brainwashed colleagues to read it. With us or against us thinking is so comfortable, and when it comes with a side of righteousness it is an especially hard habit to break. Righteousness is what religious people and SOGI-viks have in common. 'Believe what you want but don't force me to believe it' and biological reality are far better lessons than anything in offer from SOGI. Which, as you pointed out is really SO =/= GI. Being able to change or shower or pee in single sex spaces is/ should be the base line of dignity for everyone. It is not just religious women who are excluded, any woman who rightly puts her own sense of safety and security first is self-selecting out of a lot of activities. I have stopped going to the swimming pool my taxes pay for to avoid smug penis-havers(& their hand-maidens) in drag in the (former) female change room. Is that fair or just? LGB civil rights were about safety from losing our housing or our job, or not being able to get married or inherit joint property's. LGB is based in biological reality and is therefore incompatible with the notion that gender trumps sex. No, nope, nuhh-uh. Trans/GI is not the new "Gay Rights" it is about undermining reality, and redefining it in ways that harm LGB's, women's rights and children.
This tension that you have so clearly elucidated will decide the coming elections in both Canada and the USA. It is the great unspeakable on CBC, but is 'trending' everywhere else. Labour in the UK woke-up after Nicola Sturgeon died on the hill of gender self-id. Canadian multiculturalism will hopefully survive, ditto the legality of my *Same Sex* marriage.
Thank you Alex, for your comments on the article and your own critiques. I'm sorry to hear you've been self-excluding from some public spaces. I think you're right about the political consequences for candidates who refuse to take these concerns seriously.
Why are you perpetuating the anti-reality lie that sex can be changed. It can't. You can enact chemical warfare against your own sexed body and get extreme 'plastic-surgery' to remove or obscure your secondary sex characteristics, but that is not changing sex, that is extreme cosplay. Your comments prove precisely what this article was saying about what happens when you speak out against gender ideology. Cis, does not exist, it is a fiction. One survey from a clearly biased source does not speak for all lesbians. In the last 20 years Every time I have been part of a queer organization or event the transwomen ruin it for everyone else present because of their entitled male egos, and bullying tactics. I know youth who have left 'Queer youth groups' because they felt erased by trans ideology. Lesbians are most likely to suffer grave consequences for speaking out, we lose our jobs, get harassed and even murdered, ( https://www.advocate.com/crime/2022/11/28/trans-activist-convicted-murders-lesbian-couple-and-their-son)
Children who would grow up to be healthy L's or G's are being told the disgusting lie that it is possible to be born in the wrong body. Any lesbian who thinks that is okay is clearly not okay. Your unsupported sweeping generalisations are insulting to me, the lesbian writing this comment, so no that survey does not represent the truth. This is the part where you call me a terf and a hateful bigot. Enjoy your cozy self-righteousness while you are undermining the people you pretend support or represent. LGB Alliance exists to advocate for the rights of LGB people, That's it. It is not anti-trans. Try a quick google for "LGB without the T" or "peak trans" and you will find a huge diversity of voices including this articulate man: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=unhacmEXj58&pp=ygUZTGdiIG5vdCB0aGUgc2FtZSBhcyB0cmFucw%3D%3D
From the Gay news article "The research was independently conducted and surveyed more than 3,600 adults aged 18-25."
The fact that you think this is a representative sample says quite a lot about your version of reality.
You are engaging in straw man argumentation here. Nobody is "concerned by the existence of trans people" or seek to "eliminate transgender people from daily life" -- what sex realists are concerned about is what they see as the harmful impact of gender identity ideology on *everyone*, including trans-identifying people themselves. And how am I wrong about the distinction between GI and SO when that's an integral part of the ideology--i.e., that gender identity is supposedly completely distinct from sex at birth, when the latter of which is fundamental to the reality of sexual orientation? Your attempt to attribute sex realism to "white cisnormative gay men" who "align" themselves with "rightwing and nationalist" politics is a particularly bad faith argument that not only needlessly brings race into the issue, but displays the very antipathy towards gay people that concerns the LGB Alliance--which, by the way, does not exist to "exclude trans people" but simply to represent the interests of LGB people -- that's all. And I am certainly not seeking to drive a wedge between anyone: I am simply pointing out that it is the institutionalization of this ideology that is driving a wedge between sectors of society, which is resulting in real and problematic social conflict that we need to address to remain true to the principles of multiculturalism. And finally, I did not argue against the idea of the "gendered soul," only that it comprises a comprehensive doctrine and therefore shouldn't be a required part of public education because conflicts about it will be unresolvable, but should instead be a matter left to the private consciences of families.
Another excellent piece Michael.
Thanks!
Thank you for presenting a way forward that (I can hope) my fellow liberals will recognize as consistent with their values. I will be sharing this.
You're welcome, and thanks for sharing!
What is weird to me is that both the gender identity activists and the religious backlash both think that they deserve special consideration in public policy for beliefs without evidence, but just engage in special pleading for their own beliefs without evidence. I have long opposed religion being seen as a special category of belief by legal frameworks and that opposition is part of what motivates my antipathy to the kinds of demands made by gender identity beliefs. Religious people protest teaching evolution in schools with the same logic. "This offends my religious beliefs" is a bad rationale for excluding points of view from classrooms, just as "this doesn't respect my introspective sense of comfort with my sexed body". Religious beliefs and gender identity beliefs should be treated exactly the same by law, policy, and informal tolerance norms. They have the right to believe things, to not be fired or harassed for those beliefs, to sometimes be played along with, but not to have the beliefs made comfortable or make others believe them. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M3rMRjJmUVJWRxMeHEpjQBqmTp73mVo3XE0uE4hUJxQ/edit?usp=sharing
Well said, Brian. I agree 100%
Great article, Michael! Thank you for your clear explanations and excellent examples of thin versus thick ... I might be able to convince some if my less brainwashed colleagues to read it. With us or against us thinking is so comfortable, and when it comes with a side of righteousness it is an especially hard habit to break. Righteousness is what religious people and SOGI-viks have in common. 'Believe what you want but don't force me to believe it' and biological reality are far better lessons than anything in offer from SOGI. Which, as you pointed out is really SO =/= GI. Being able to change or shower or pee in single sex spaces is/ should be the base line of dignity for everyone. It is not just religious women who are excluded, any woman who rightly puts her own sense of safety and security first is self-selecting out of a lot of activities. I have stopped going to the swimming pool my taxes pay for to avoid smug penis-havers(& their hand-maidens) in drag in the (former) female change room. Is that fair or just? LGB civil rights were about safety from losing our housing or our job, or not being able to get married or inherit joint property's. LGB is based in biological reality and is therefore incompatible with the notion that gender trumps sex. No, nope, nuhh-uh. Trans/GI is not the new "Gay Rights" it is about undermining reality, and redefining it in ways that harm LGB's, women's rights and children.
This tension that you have so clearly elucidated will decide the coming elections in both Canada and the USA. It is the great unspeakable on CBC, but is 'trending' everywhere else. Labour in the UK woke-up after Nicola Sturgeon died on the hill of gender self-id. Canadian multiculturalism will hopefully survive, ditto the legality of my *Same Sex* marriage.
Thank you Alex, for your comments on the article and your own critiques. I'm sorry to hear you've been self-excluding from some public spaces. I think you're right about the political consequences for candidates who refuse to take these concerns seriously.
Why are you perpetuating the anti-reality lie that sex can be changed. It can't. You can enact chemical warfare against your own sexed body and get extreme 'plastic-surgery' to remove or obscure your secondary sex characteristics, but that is not changing sex, that is extreme cosplay. Your comments prove precisely what this article was saying about what happens when you speak out against gender ideology. Cis, does not exist, it is a fiction. One survey from a clearly biased source does not speak for all lesbians. In the last 20 years Every time I have been part of a queer organization or event the transwomen ruin it for everyone else present because of their entitled male egos, and bullying tactics. I know youth who have left 'Queer youth groups' because they felt erased by trans ideology. Lesbians are most likely to suffer grave consequences for speaking out, we lose our jobs, get harassed and even murdered, ( https://www.advocate.com/crime/2022/11/28/trans-activist-convicted-murders-lesbian-couple-and-their-son)
Children who would grow up to be healthy L's or G's are being told the disgusting lie that it is possible to be born in the wrong body. Any lesbian who thinks that is okay is clearly not okay. Your unsupported sweeping generalisations are insulting to me, the lesbian writing this comment, so no that survey does not represent the truth. This is the part where you call me a terf and a hateful bigot. Enjoy your cozy self-righteousness while you are undermining the people you pretend support or represent. LGB Alliance exists to advocate for the rights of LGB people, That's it. It is not anti-trans. Try a quick google for "LGB without the T" or "peak trans" and you will find a huge diversity of voices including this articulate man: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=unhacmEXj58&pp=ygUZTGdiIG5vdCB0aGUgc2FtZSBhcyB0cmFucw%3D%3D
It's time to wake up to the facts, yo.
A recent Canadian research publication that supports many thoughts and considerations voiced in this article: https://www.cacap-acpea.org/wp-content/uploads/Psychodynamic-psychotherapy-for-gender-dysphoria-is-not-conversion-therapy.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email