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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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