Ross Douthat realizes that he’s caught in a culture war trap. He says as much.
This uniquely American climate also raises uncomfortable questions for the few conservatives, like myself, who enjoy a substantial liberal readership. You will notice that I have written this essay in a studiously cautious style, on the theory that as I am in fact a known social conservative, my too-vigorous prosecution of the skeptics’ case would serve only to reinforce the current progressive orthodoxy — enabling the response that, see, to doubt the wisdom of puberty blockers or the authenticity of teenage self-identification is the province of Catholics, religious conservatives, the out-group.
The problem is that anyone who questions the orthodoxy is immediately cast as the enemy, to be dismissed as a hater or something-phobic, and at best ignored, at worst, canceled. Which means that we can’t have a discussion about anything because a discussion means there will be views that differ, and that can’t be. And yet, Douthat makes a point that is valuable on the particular issue at hand, transgender related, and critical on the broader issue of the culture war.
According to Gallup, the share of younger Americans who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender has risen precipitously in the last decade. Almost twenty-one percent of Generation Z — meaning, for the purposes of the survey, young adults born between 1997 and 2003 — identifies as L.G.B.T., as against about 10 percent of the millennial generation, just over 4 percent of my own Generation X and less than 3 percent of baby boomers. Comparing the Generation Z to the baby boom generation, the percentage of people identifying as transgender, in particular, has risen twentyfold.
What does this mean? Douthat breaks it down into three camps.
This is great news. Sexual fluidity, transgender and nonbinary experience are clearly intrinsic to the human experience, our society used to suppress them with punitive heteronormativity and only now are we getting a true picture of the real diversity of sexual attractions and gender identities.
We shouldn’t read too much into it. This trend is probably mostly just young people being young people, exploring and experimenting and differentiating themselves from their elders. Most of the Generation Zers identifying as L.G.B.T. are calling themselves bisexual and will probably end up in straight relationships, if they aren’t in them already. Some of the young adults describing themselves as transgender or nonbinary may drift back to cisgender identities as they grow older.
This trend is bad news. What we’re seeing today isn’t just a continuation of the gay rights revolution; it’s a form of social contagion which our educational and medical institutions are encouraging and accelerating. These kids aren’t setting themselves free from the patriarchy; they’re under the influence of online communities of imitation and academic fashions laundered into psychiatry and education — one part Tumblr and TikTok mimesis, one part Judith Butler.
But laying out the three broad options, which of course will have personal variations within them so if you don’t see your precise view in there, don’t take it personally, is only the first part of the question. The second part is where the majority of people fit within these confines, which brings us to the big question, why can’t we express our view out loud so that others realize they’re not alone?
The effects of this debate-ending impulse on liberal discourse is the third complexity lurking behind my initial categorization. Within liberaldom right now you literally cannot know, outside of private conversation, whether someone is fully in the first camp, more inclined to the second camp or even drawn toward the third. There is a gap between what people are willing to say in public and what they really think that’s unprecedented on any controversial issue I have seen.
Not too long ago, UVA student Emma Camp had an op-ed in the New York Times saying something very similar, that students self-censor rather than express a view outside the progressive orthodoxy for fear of what their classmates and professors will say, think or do. She was viciously attacked by some of the biggest progressive voices at the Times for challenging their piety.
And here’s social conservative Douthat raising the same thing, which proves that it’s nothing more than a conservative talking point since progressives, who control the orthodoxy, don’t whine about it so it can’t be real.
This — call it discretion, if you want — is partly voluntary, based on a desire to be a good ally, to show maximal kindness, and not give any aid and comfort to conservatives, Republicans, Ron DeSantis.
But it’s also enforced: A version of the Rowling vortex quickly surrounds anyone who argues skeptically about the rise in transgender identification or suggests that hormonal and surgical treatments are being overused, whether that person is a journalist, an author, an academic researcher, even a gender-dysphoria clinician.
Granted, this rationale is focused on Douthat’s specific transgender topic, but his reference to “maximal kindness” is a pervasive demand and expectation in the culture war. To not comply with what others characterize as kindness is to make on feel guilt at being unkind. Most of us want to be kind, and the argument that it takes little effort to use someone’s preferred pronouns or acquiesce to their gender identity has merit.
Indeed, when an English prof argued that academics should not thank their students for sharing, there was a strong reaction that it was just a matter of being polite, of kindness, rather than enabling the narcissism that students expect and demand from their teachers.
Is it kind to exercise “discretion” and not say anything that challenges the orthodoxy such that the zealots believe they are the majority, even though they’re not. Or more importantly, that instead of working together openly and honestly to find sustainable fixes for real problems, our “kindness” prevents our finding viable solutions? Is it kinder to say nothing or to say something, even if it means they will call us impolite, dicks or lacking in emotional intelligence?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Is it “being polite,” or is it lying? Richard Levine is a man. To call him Rachel, to describe him as a woman, or to use female pronouns to refer to him, are lies. Politeness is nice, but not to the extent that it demands objective falsehood.
If an MRI was done of Rachel Levine’s brain it would very likely reveal that her brain resembles the brain of a cis gendered woman more than the brain of a cis gendered man. I cannot post links, but if this is new to you, I suggest you search online for MRI studies of the brains those who identify as trans and non-binary. The studies support their identifications.
Unlike Dan, I see no reason to deny the existence of transgender people or call them liars. But I am familiar with the MRI studies of brain activity (not brains), and they’re still very limited and tentative whereas a penis or vagina, or chromosomes, are not. If that’s the hill you want to fight the battle on, you lose.
At the same time, if someone’s MRI doesn’t reflect brain activity of the gender with which the person identities, does that mean they aren’t transgender? Will you be the one to inform them they’re liars?
I don’t say this to undermine the existence of transgender people. Quite the opposite. If that’s who they are, so be it. It’s none of my business either way. But your reply to Dan is the sort of dishonest overstatement that makes your position as myopic as Dan’s and makes discussion impossible. You and Dan are just opposite sides of the same coin.
Brain ACTIVITY is correct. I said very likely, I didn’t say definitely. It’s possible MRI scans still don’t reveal everything. Levine identifies as a trans woman, I respect her perception and pronouns.
It’s also possible they identify as a dead salmon.
(Search for ignobel-prize-in-neuroscience-the-dead-salmon-study)
Stephanie:
That’s almost certainly not true. There’s a ton of science and over 100 years of data collected by gender clinics on late onset trans women (Levine transitioned at about age 53), a phenomenon that was first recorded by clinicians in the 19th Century, was studied by German doctors in the 1930’s, and has been described by numerous researchers, including Max Hirschfeld, Kurt Freund, Ray Blanchard, Michael Bailey. The data is consistent, with different researchers in different places at different times observing the exact same things.
These researchers’ conclusions include that late onset trans women generally do not display any signs of affinity to identifying as the other gender in early childhood, tend to adopt masculine traits and gender roles in childhood, and often seek out careers in masculine-coded fields. They are usually gynephilic (attracted to women). Levine, like many late onset trans women, was in a heterosexual marriage with a woman before her transition. (See also Caitlyn Jenner, Mike Penner/Christine Daniels, etc.)
Late onset trans women absolutely suffer from gender dysphoria, and their transitions are often medically indicated successful at addressing their dysphoria. And they are entitled to be accepted as women by the rest of society.
However, their gender dysphoria does not come from being “a woman trapped in a man’s body”, which is what the brain scan claim implies. Rather, they develop a strong erotic and romantic desire to be or become women. Anne Lawrence, herself a late onset trans woman, wrote about this phenomenon, with numerous case studies, in her book “Men Trapped in Men’s Bodies”. There is extensive evidence that this phenomenon is found in all, or close to all, gynephilic, late onset trans women.
According to Bailey, this attraction generally first manifests itself in arousal while wearing women’s clothes in adolescence; while some people who experience this simply develop cross-dressing fetishes of various magnitudes as adults, a subset of these people have intense desires to cross-dress that eventually get so severe that they suffer gender dysphoria as a result of not being able to present as the woman that they strongly desire to be; those people then, sometimes well into adulthood, transition to alleviate the dysphoria.
The bottom line is that it would be incredibly unlikely that LATE ONSET trans women would have different brain scans as you state. The other main group of trans women, who develop dysphoria early in life, present as highly effeminate at a young age and with feminine coded interests and behaviors, and are androphilic, might have different brain scans. But the group Levine almost certainly belongs are, biologically, heterosexual and male but with a very intense romantic and/or erotic desire to be or become women.
Indeed, the fundamental heterosexuality (and thus male-ness, and non-cis-womanness) of the group can be seen by the fact that while something like 4% (depends on who you ask, but close to that) of cis women are lesbians, half or more of trans women are gynephilic. If trans women’s brain scans were more like cis women than cis men, wouldn’t you expect that something like 4% of trans women would be gynephilic, just like cis women?
Their brain scans are almost certainly going to look like those of heterosexual cis males.
Dilan,
Thank you for your respectful reply. I believe the implication that people who transition later are dysphoric is controversial. I don’t think MRI studies were available for 100 years and persons that presented in any way that deviated from what was considered normal for their gender were usually pathologized.
As you probably know homosexuality was considered a psychiatric disorder until less 50 years ago.
Recognition of the complexity of gender and gender identification has not yet reached mainstream, but I hope and think it will.
I choose to respect an individual’s reported gender identification.
These MRI studies are, by and large, nonsense. Let me explain why. Assume that behavioral preferences are partially epigenetic and partially wholly socially constructed. Assume also that sexual proclivities within sexual orientation are partially genetics and partially socialization. That says nothing about whether brains will actually be differently wired. Why?
Assume that male’s and female’s brains function-structure is essentially the same. Say again that certain areas of the brain are active when someone is engaged in particular behaviors. Any person who adopts particular behavior preferences or behaviors will have activity in one area of the brain, regardless of whether that person is male or female. Even assuming the brain function MRIs are worthwhile, those scans thus mean nothing in examining whether one has a male or female brain. It’s all about socialization and choices mean that similar behavior is reflected in similar activity. That means there is no such thing as a male or female brain as defined by brain activity.
Adolescent genital mutilation. Lots of money to be made. What’s not to like?
We’re as good as the Somalis.
I hope you didn’t sprain anything coming up with this deep thought.
Those who disagree should be treated kindly, too.
Kindness is either a two-way street or a weapon.
“Kill ’em with kindness” is a good way to use it as a weapon.
People are always such suckers for malignant narcissists posing as virtuous crusaders in the prevailing cultural paradigm. The narcissists’ idea of “kindness” is to demand obsequiousness to their own fragile feelings and beliefs while they do the precise opposite to everyone else. Their feelings matter, your do not. Their intentions matter, yours do not. Their allies can make the stupidest arguments in their favor and they will cheer them on while mocking the rationality of their adversaries, relying on social pressure and institutional support to sustain the mockery.
Their ideas of “kindness” and “justice” are paper-thin and are used to conceal and justify a parade of injustices, just like any other quasi-moral pursuit from religion to policing to military interventionism.
“That is the idea — that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked. You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs.”
– Bertrand Russell
I wonder…would it be “kind” to affirm the body delusions of anorexics? The point is whether kindness requires affirming unreality. Would it be “kind” to affirm the views of anti-vaxxers, flat earth theorists, young earth believers, or 9-11 conspiracy nutters? What about chem trail believers? Is “kindness” just a cover for “I am covering my ears and can’t hear you…lalalala”?
It’s kinder to say something, to make the effort at open and honest communication than to put up another barrier to it and call it “discretion”. There is still room for discretion in how to frame or present the message, but when put in binary terms like that, the answer should always be to speak. It’s the pro-social solution.
Not that it isn’t uncomfortable, but we weren’t descended from fearful men, or so I was taught.
Is there discretion in how to frame it? From what I’ve seen, any challenge to dogma, no matter how sweetly put, evokes a knee-jerk negative response such that it really doesn’t matter. Is there an overlap in “discretion” that allows for both sides to speak the same language? And is it “uncomfortable” or futile and pointlessly antagonistic?
The only way to find out would be to try to engage. I’m not going to trust your opinion, as you shouldn’t trust mine if I were to say there is a way to frame it. Truth is, I’m not sure, but land on the side of trying to engage and have been trying where I can and softly. The language spoken by some is strange, and for whatever reason I’m dedicated to trying to find whatever overlap there can be, some sort of common ground. That or I love ramming my head against the wall. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference.
I’m all for trying, but that, too, is a two-way street. If engagement requires you to acquiesce to language and assumptions, is it really engagement?
And lucky you have a hard head.
I am one of the EVIL BABY BOOMERS responsible for all the evil in the world so obviously am infected with extreme conservatism even though I have always thought of myself as a liberal.
I have five comments to make:-
1/ All 3 of Douthat’s classifications make sense to me;
2/ Humans have an extreme tendency to go in for fads, yoyos and other fad toys and now fads for being differently gendered;
3/ Young people below the age of 30 are excessively passionate and have a greater than average tendency to adopt fads. In the past men who liked to dress up in women’s clothing were called drag queens but no one pretended that they were actually women;
4/ Now it is my suspicion that some of the people who undergo cosmetic sex changes may come to gregret their haste;
5/ That some activists and doctors have an interest in encouraging young people to adopt cosmetic abnd hormonal sex changes because they expect to make a profit out of it.
I finally agree WOKENESS is a serious problem but so also is ANTI-WOKENESS.
One other comment.
Youn people whether children or teenagers are much concerned with the fad of making themselves seem COOL to other children and teenagers. If ever a fad arises to pretend that one is an extraterrestial alien from another galaxy, there will be some who assert that they are such and that they need surgical alteration to implant their missing antennae.
Use the reply button instead of shitting up my comments with new threads every time some half-baked idea pops into your head. Better yet, let it go.