At The Atlantic, Jesse Singal wrote about the unspoken side of the transgender issue. There has been significant “growth” in the issue, but there are some unpleasant “why” questions involved.
The current era of gender-identity awareness has undoubtedly made life easier for many young people who feel constricted by the sometimes-oppressive nature of gender expectations. A rich new language has taken root, granting kids who might have felt alone or excluded the words they need to describe their experiences. And the advent of the internet has allowed teenagers, even ones in parts of the country where acceptance of gender nonconformity continues to come far too slowly, to find others like them.
But when it comes to the question of physical interventions, this era has also brought fraught new challenges to many parents. Where is the line between not “feeling like” a girl because society makes it difficult to be a girl and needing hormones to alleviate dysphoria that otherwise won’t go away? How can parents tell? How can they help their children gain access to the support and medical help they might need, while also keeping in mind that adolescence is, by definition, a time of fevered identity exploration?
It’s fairly obvious why posing these questions would outrage trans activists, as it violates their premise, and the narrative that follows, that there is nothing wrong with being transgender. To non-transgender people, as well as people who aren’t obsessed with seeking reasons to be outraged, the questions posed, as well as the answers provided (ignoring Jesse’s first 20 grafs of anecdotal indulgence for the hard of thinking), these might seem to be fair, maybe even compelling, questions.
But that’s not the point. Rather, the point is that the reaction of the unduly passionate is that Jesse Singal’s writing about the subject was, itself, wrong. You see, Jesse isn’t a transgender person, and he is thus not permitted a view.
Tip for cis people who may be confused by the reaction to Jesse Singal’s work: It doesn’t matter whether we see what’s harmful or transphobic about it—trans people are saying it is, and they’re the ones who get to decide that!
— Lilly Dancyger (@lillydancyger) June 18, 2018
Regardless of how large, or small, the number of people who have gender dysphoria, they remain a very small percentage of the population. Yet, anyone outside that tiny group must not speak, question, opine or write in a way that transgender people decide is transphobic. And if you violate this precept by expressing an opinion, prepare to be attacked.
If you must know one thing about journalist Jesse Singal, it’s that he loves reporting on trans issues—trans kids, in particular. If you must know another thing, it’s that a lot of trans people, myself included, loathe his coverage of trans issues with a once-fiery passion that has since cooled into a dormant rage.
This is ad hominem at its finest. The evil isn’t what Jesse has to say, but that the person saying it is Jesse, and why is he obsessed with trans kids?
Why does someone like Jesse Singal keep getting paid to write about trans shit?
Notwithstanding this comes from an article in Jezebel, long respected for presenting ideas that no rational person would ever consider, the writer, Harron Walker, was shocked the Jesse’s editor at the Atlantic didn’t want to discuss the matter. That didn’t prevent Walker from twitting about it.
Who wouldn’t want to have a thoughtful discussion with this person?
We’re well beyond the point where the platitudinous “we need to have a discussion” means more than “shut the fuck up and do as we, the marginalized, tell you, shitlord.” This isn’t going to work. This isn’t going to happen. As much as a tiny, discrete group might believe itself, and itself alone, entitled to express a view on an issue nearest and dearest to their hearts, a pluralistic society isn’t going to tolerate it.
Transgender people should suffer no detriment, but they bring issues to the table that need to be given a full consideration by everyone. They don’t have to like what Jesse Singal wrote. They don’t have to like Jesse. And they can respond with twits like Walker’s, if they really want to show that they’re incomprehensible dolts.
But trying to silence Jesse, and by extension all non-transgender people, because they’re not allowed to have or express a view, isn’t going to help anything, and is very likely to give rise to a crushing backlash.
Without any trans people in the room (writers, editors, copy editors, fact-checkers…) to say “Hey, you guys, this story about trans people sucks,” someone like Jesse Singal is able to become one of the most prominent and successful journalists covering trans issues today, despite the fact that every trans person I know takes issue with the way he does it.
Maybe if you had something more substantive to contribute than “jesse singal’s name is an anagram for je single ass which makes sense!,” someone might let you in the room. But if your argument is that no one but you is allowed to have a view, then you will likely find yourself unwelcome anywhere rational people can be found.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“despite the fact that every trans person I know takes issue with the way he does it.”
Perhaps the person who wrote this has a very limited view of the trans world based on how they treat questions and dissenters. Just a thought.
Are you suggesting that any trans person could possibly have a different view from the “right” view?
Or perhaps the suggestion’s that no trans person can have the Wrong view on Trans Issues. Not quite the same thing.
Regards,
Nemo
I suspect that there might be different views in there somewhere, but it might be a bit risky to express a view that doesn’t have official approval.
“How did Nixon win? No one I know voted for him.”
Sure, when you’re in an extreme minority, it just makes sense to actively pick a fight with everyone in the country who isn’t a player in your goofy little freakshow. How could that possibly go wrong?
To some, this might seem like a recipe for antagonizing a lot of people. Rather than engender understanding or empathy, it seems like a good way to get your self-absorbed, self-righteous ass kicked.
First sentence, I would’ve put the period after “isn’t”. The rest is just inflammatory.
So you’re saying I’m a flaming hetero?
This is something that’s mystified me about the progressives for the last year and a half or so. They’ve been calling, quite loudly and broadly, for nothing less than violent revolution, when they’re generally unarmed. Meanwhile, the government (run by literal Hitler, as they see it) has quite a lot of guns, and no lack of will to use them. And even if you leave the government out of it, the owners of the estimated 300M guns in private hands in the US are going to be pretty red politically, not blue.
So, yeah–in many ways, they’re trying really hard to pick a fight they can’t possibly win.
To be precise, he was also writing about non-trans people who detransitioned or desisted. Under the “rules,” don’t the trans people have to refrain from writing, commenting, or tweeting about the experience of those who detransitioned? And do the ones who detransitioned get to unilaterally decide whether anything said is harmful or detrans-phobic?
That’s precise?
But did they really detransition, or did they retransition? (The “gender fluids,” of course, flip back and forth, so they can transition, detransition, retransition, redetransition, reretransition, ect.)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4d/The_Sneetches_and_Other_Stories.png
Hey, I would love to have a thoughtful discussion with Harron Walker.
I just don’t think Harron Walker is capable of having a thoughtful discussion.
Of course Walker is capable of having a thoughtful discussion, provided discussion means Walker speaks and you STFU and listen.
Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.
Anyone who can keep a heron on a leash must know a thing or two. In Tennessee, that would count as a variant of The Tennessee Bird Walk.
What do we want? Your support!
How do we earn it? Bigot!
Do they want our support or our obsequious acquiescence? Shaming us into silence might better serve the latter, but it’s a serious long shot.
Perhaps it’s because I’m an evil, wicked economist. Perhaps it’s because I’ve always been a cheap bastard.
“As much as a tiny, discrete group might believe itself, and itself alone, entitled to express a view on an issue nearest and dearest to their hearts, a pluralistic society isn’t going to tolerate it.”
I’d be willing to concede them exclusive (moral) rights to speak on the issue. But in the interest of parity, you can only use funding from people who have the moral right to speak. Money for procedures/help centers/’advocacy’ so on and so forth can only come from those who are members of the group in question, and they get their moral pedestal.
Sometimes, the fantasy world I live in is remarkably entertaining.
Distress over gender is the key element of gender dysphoria, a mental disorder–DSM-5. Even I have a limit, usually by monthly numbers, of conversations with persons with mental disorders. Those “conversations” usually don’t go so good.
It isn’t a “disorder” anymore (though, oddly, there it is, still in the DSM). The World Health Organization has now similarly moved to create a new category of “sexual health” conditions, so that the people formerly traumatized by it being a “mental health” condition won’t have to be traumatized anymore. At least by that. (No explanation as to why the authors of the politically-morphed DSM or the new WHO standards lacked the grace to extend this to all persons traumatized by classification as “disordered” or “mentally” ill).
When I wrote this post, I struggled with whether to say “suffer” about gender dysphoria, but ended up not doing to as too loaded a word.
You said “loaded.” Uh uh huh huh huh huh.
Labelling sexual “disorders” (and others) is purely political. Real doctors confirm diagnosis through pathology. Fake doctors (i.e. shrinks) confirm diagnosis through court process.
Here’s a party trick to fool progressives. When they go off about how great it was that homosexuality eliminated in DSM III/IV. But then ask what advancement in scientific learning effected that change. Big goose egg.
I think my next move is to show up at LGBTQRX+ conference and point out proliferation of “chicks with dicks” porn with allegedly “straight” guys should surely reinforce their cause. That worked well last time for me,
Is it meaningful, in any way, to learn that you and your audience are several orders of magnitude more interested in what’s going on over at ‘Jezebel’ and among the unduly passionate transgender Twittersphere than any of the thousands of coastal libs I know?
Nuts. Nothing is more important than people you know. Absolutely nothing.
I think you missed the point.