| Posts | Links | About |
|---|
Given the latest drama on the Road I thought I should finally put to text some ideas I've been mulling over the past few months; to strike the iron while it's hot, so to speak. I've spoken about it briefly but the original thread I wrote them in was deleted. I mostly want to offer a perspective I haven't really seen anywhere about the latest culture war flashpoint and why it seems so divisive. Many people have (correctly) blamed socmed as inflaming people, but I think there's another component that is often overlooked. I'll be contrasting the "gender issue" (not sure what else to call it) with the LGB movement, as they seem to be spoken of as if they're one and the same when I simply cannot see it as so: the gender issue is so divisive due to some attributes that the LGB movement notably lacked.
The LGB movement has a long and storied history, and gay people have existed in every culture recorded in history. The fact that the modern LGB movement in the U.S. dates back to at least the 1950s means there was a lot of time for an equilibrium to be reached (opponents will call it "boiling the frog slowly," I prefer to call it consensus building). This allowed people to form their own opinion and sufficient time to come to a common ground -- such as calling it a "civil union" instead of "marriage" and exemptions for religious organizations -- that most Americans can agree with, or at least tolerate. This kind of consensus building is notably absent from the gender movement, where the issue went from virtually unknown outside of certain psychology circles to being taught to your children in the span or about 10 years. The gender issue went much too far much too fast, and this inflamed everyone right-of-left who did not feel like they had a chance to form their own opinion.
Exasperating this feeling of being forced down this path is that the gender issue has far more impositions on people. A woman working with a gay guy or a lesbian doesn't have a reason to care; she might not even know it. A woman working with a visibly trans-woman needs to remember to use (what she has been told are the) right pronouns -- on pain of being written up by HR, needs to share a stall with them, and must in general entertain what she very well may see as a harmful delusion. There's a kind of intrusion that can't be so easily waved away with a laissez-faire attitude the same way someone complaining about working with a gay guy can be ("why do you care who your coworker sleeps with? That's weird.")
The LGB movement also had a core thesis. The LGB movement, whether or not you support it, had a kind of seductive simplicity to it that could be couched in existing American sensibilities. It goes something like this: "When you deny Equal Protection on the basis of sexual orientation, it's not so different from denying Equal Protection on the basis of other characteristics (such as sex (not gender!) or race)." Even if you disagree that they're "not so different," you can at least see the parameters that have been set: we're talking about Equal Protection; nothing more and nothing less. The only other "core tenant" of the LGB movement was also to extend protections already afforded to other groups (merely widening the breadth of existing anti-discrimination statutes, no tricks!). It was a relatively modest proposal in that it only pushed for changes in the view of the State, and not in the view of individual people. A common phrase was that "it doesn't matter what consenting adults do in the privacy of their home". The "consenting", "adult", and "in the home" parts were not up for negotiation by either side.
What is the core thesis of the pro-trans movement? Well, despite reading much spilled ink on the matter, I'm not sure. It seems to focus on a discrimination against a quasi-suspect class (in the Equal Protection sense), but also seeks conformity of everyone else on certain points (pronouns and sharing single-sex spaces). It also focuses on so-called "gender-affirming care," which covers the waterfront from social transition to genital surgeries on minors. This ambiguity is leveraged by opponents to paint everyone on the pro-trans side as genital mutilators who want to groom your kids, and by proponents to give a milder version of what they actually want and to hide the more distasteful facts of the matter -- who is so wanton in candor as to think kids are only getting "socially transitioned" at medical institutes?
The lack of clarity on what is actually the end-goal has given leeway to legislators to impose harsh restrictions on transgender people. The general workflow is this:
0. Lack of clarity in message allows pro-trans extremists and twitter freaks to set the tone which -- while far and away from what most people, trans or otherwise actually think -- becomes the "party line" according to the anti-trans side
1. The anti-trans side imposes restrictions on care (sometimes on adults, which I simply cannot agree with)
2. The pro-trans side flips out, and in true American fashion, flouts the laws in ways that can be quite extreme (twitter freaks from (0) sending children they met on Discord prescription meds through the mail)
3. Seeing this, the legislators go even harder, causing a vicious cycle of (1,2) with escalating Fuck You's to the other side.
I'm not sure what the solution to this is. I kind of just want everyone to calm down and to come to the table in good faith. For my opinion, while I do think much of "gender affirming care" may end up having unintended deleterious effects, I am highly skeptical of government intercession in the doctor's office (indeed, I begin to even think it might be Constitutionally barred, but that is a wacky position that is disfavored by both sides so what the fuck do I know) . I think that there are cases where gender affirming care -- up to and including surgeries -- can be the correct call. I am unmoved by arguments that they should be restricted for the same reason I am unmoved by arguments for gun control and speech restrictions: the risk of undue State intrusion simply outweighs the State's interest in my mind.