Photo by HH58, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Featuring the Fabulous Dadbots: Mark M., Dave S., Mark O., Dennis C., Paul C., and Geoff Carter
Speaking of “canceling” and “wokeness”. It’s my observation that the most sensitive social group and the one most prone to outrage & condemnation of anyone who even remotely disagrees with them, is the transgender activist community.
Not that this is a monolithic community. They are firing rockets all over their own backyard. Reading a NY Times summary of transgender treatments, I was struck by the rigidity and intensity of belief among the activists. If clinic X in Philadelphia, for example, isn’t adhering to the exact approach of activist group Y, the clinic is not just wrong. It is transphobic and hateful and destructive!
For example, a leading clinic attempted to set a standard that teens and preteens seeking medical therapy (such as hormones or puberty blockers) show evidence of “several years” of persistently identifying with and/or behaving as their non-birth gender. Oh, nooooo, say the activists. This requirement is “harmful and destructive and abusive and unethical and immoral.” It is “harmful assertion of psychogatekeeping” that “undermines patient autonomy.””
Another clinic is branded as “violently exclusionary” because it “remains grounded in ‘cis-normativity and trans exclusion”.
Bear in mind, these statements aren’t going after the Republican troglodytes and their creepy bathroom bills. These attacks are against the medical providers who are ON THEIR SIDE.
(Not surprisingly, Chappell himself was badly dinged over transphobic comments. I didn’t follow that closely but given that ((as Dennis describes it)) the outrage meter was turned up to hair trigger levels, it’s not a shocking development.)
MO points out that a certain political party runs the risk of being attacked as too “woke”. I would say that the entire transgender set of issues is one for the Democrats to de-emphasize. Girls turning into dudes, and vice versa—it’s inherently confusing to the average person. Having issues or questions about it does not make one a hateful and transphobic person guilty of “misgendering”. And when they start throwing around the crazy terms like “pregnant people” (instead of ‘mothers’) and “chest-feeding” (instead of ‘breast feeding’), well, it reminds me of the John Lennon lyric: “If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow.”
–Mark M.
Interesting.
Dave (he/his/him)
I am relieved that I won’t have to cancel you, Dave. I’m OK with people pronouning themselves. I don’t personally because I don’t want to be “gendered”. Nobody’s bizness but my own, I figure. Folks can even announce their pronoun as “they”, but I won’t read their shit if they use “they” as their personal pronoun mixed in with “they” as the plural pronoun is its definition in the English language. Besides the narcissistic gall of redefining a word to be their personal plaything, it renders many sentences and paragraphs to be unintelligible.
You are henceforth warned, bots.
MarkO
Right on, MO, and “the human person formerly known as ‘I'” is relieved that “the human person formerly known as ‘I'” won’t have to cancel “the human person formerly known as ‘I'”‘s fellow bots. Those who might venture to even suggest that the term “the human person formerly known as ‘I'” is too convoluted to say rather than simply “I” shall be henceforth cancelled for “I” is an antiquated label of oppression, a term meant to keep humans separate from each other. Anyway, usage of “the human person formerly known as ‘I'” makes more linguistic sense than “they” when referring to one human.
The human person formerly known as “I” concurs.
–Dennis C.
What about me?
–Geoff
As do all Latinx, even the cis-normative.
–Mark M.
I’ll put forth there are societal phases/mores to the daylighting of these facts of life, (note I used daylighting in lieu of the taboo ‘woke’—more on that below), analogous to the (5) stages of grieving: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. Not exactly but similar. And keep in mind “that guy” form Brown County, Kenosha, Menomonee Falls, South Milwaukee, Tucson, etc. … who had zero ‘pc’ education, no college roommates who were…odd…different, but ok. The guy that sees (2) guys holding hands and breaks into hives. Well eventually, statistically, “that guy”, (or gal—I shouldn’t be sexist, ay…), has a child who is gay/lesbian. Personally, I feel like I know hundreds. An exaggeration, but I can name a half dozen within a pretty tight circle of friends who have gay children. Dick Cheney too. Gays used to be called the 10% society. Such a relief to see the courts and parts of the world finally accepting this fact of hormonal life. Still a long ways to go, given Vlad and others.
https://www.transhub.org.au/101/cis
Next up: transgender. Here we stand, society wise, at the point where Brown County, etc. guy was at 30 years ago…denial…bargaining, anger…add confusion, indignation… (not God’s way dammit……worse yet if Tucker Carlson poisons his ear)—still a long, long, way from acceptance. Thus, I understand those folks on the front line arguing vehemently, even with those ‘on their side’. The crap they are dealing with is bad and they are in the foxholes… the bleeding edge era of transgender understanding/acceptance. Is it more that 10%? I don’t think so, but from my seat it is a lot more than I used to think and thus 10x, maybe 100x more than Brown County guy—or Clarence Thomas thinks. We have (3) in our office of 150. All great individuals…no big deal. I remember counseling our HR person—privately—who got all nervous just talking about it. Relax, this is natural, this is not Satan’s doing. Trust you’ve seen these modern rest room signs:
.jpg){kind=link}
Ted Eytan from Washington, DC, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
.jpg){kind=link}
tedeytan, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
As far as woke…vs daylighted vs enlightened vs whatever…. I personally like the term (enlightened was my go to for years, but woke is fresh…wake up and smell the coffee…) but hate the stigma now attached to woke. There’s nothing wrong to becoming informed…seeing the other side of an issue…even flipping one’s opinion. The important part is to be informed—and to allow all to be informed—then come to your own conclusion. The stigma with “woke” feels like free speech suppression. I lump book banning and critical race theory suppression, (Rebecca K, Michels, RoJo, and other Mequon mothers), into the cesspool of adults with blinders on denying kids the right to think/choose for themselves. Tucker Carlson is much to blame for this with his replacement theory vomit.
I had this SNL skit idea about Uncle Joe—in flannel, explaining to a small New Hampshire town hall gathering all of this. He’d start off with how he first came to accept different folk via the below. But it is too hard, too risky to deliver all my killer punch lines…at least right now, so I’ll leave you with that tease.
Fotopersbureau De Boer, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons
–Dave S.
Yeah Dave! Nice post! (Cue the one person clapping slowly, more claps joining in, then thunderous applause). Really. I think it’d be a great blog post on its own. While I must admit the grumbling and joking and scratching our bald, grey heads commentary of us more curmudgeonly bots re. obdurate woke protocols has been pretty fun, we must pause, tip our hats to you, and await the A-team punch lines.
–Dennis C.
On the front lines of societal change, we always see the radicals. Civil rights. Women’s rights. Gay rights.
The language of the radical vanguard is never comfortable to hear. Consider Muhammad Ali or Bobby Seale. Those guys were tough to stomach at the time.And MLK, though his legacy has been sanitized, had a lot more uncomfortable things to say than “I have a dream”. And remember how the mainstream culture came down on the clenched fist Olympic Black Power athletes?
How about Betty Friedan or Bella Abzug? Didn’t have many admirers among our middle-class parents? And when you get to gay rights, we always confront the image of guys going all flamboyant at the Gay Pride parade. That is not calculated to win over South Milwaukee man.
Those who are pushing the envelope really are in the foxhole, as Dave points out. And, to their credit, they are out there leading with their chins because they want to.
What’s stronger now in the culture, I think, is the intensity of the backlash. My own discomfort simply betrays my own hetero-normative outlook, as the cool kids would say. By expressing my discomfort, I realize that I am guilty of aiding & comforting the wrong side of the culture war. But the truth is, without being a bigot, I am not comfortable with the level of radical certitude expressed by the transgender activists.
The problem isn’t totally unique to this time and this issue. When the culture war is fought, there’s no room for nuance.
–Mark M.
Sheesh. You guys are cranking it up a notch. Now MM comes in with some thoughtful introspection on societal change and culture wars…
“When the culture war is fought, there’s no room for nuance,” says MM. Good quote, but therein lies the conundrum of culture wars. The real world is just so freakin’ nuanced. In nature there are no straight lines. Most events, issues, decisions, etc. are colored in complicated and nuanced shades, seldom all black or all white.
But, yeah, to be at the forefront of social change requires a certain level of zealotry, a level of belief in the rightness of one’s cause that doesn’t have room for nuance, because that might lead to doubt. Remember film footage of those black kids who were the first to integrate schools in Alabama.? Imagine how they felt with all those white people screaming and throwing stuff at them while they were escorted into the school by the National Guard. That took courage bolstered by 100% belief in the idea that racial segregation was unjust. Their un-nuanced zeal led us to a place where today school integration is an accepted norm. But, in the real, nuanced world, true integration has been compromised by white folks moving from urban school districts, leaving many of them mostly black now.
Today, people are wrestling with issues like abortion and transgender rights. When it comes to abortion, the most ardent pro-choice advocates brook no compromise in their belief that every woman has the right to terminate any pregnancy at any time. But most people squirm at the idea of a healthy woman choosing to abort a healthy 8-month-old fetus. On the other side of the issue, the most devout pro-life advocates brook no compromise in their belief that no woman has any right to terminate any pregnancy ever. But, once again, most people squirm at the idea of a 13-year-old girl who became pregnant when she was raped by her uncle not having the right to an abortion.
And transgender rights? Most of us are ambivalent because, like MM said, we don’t understand much about it. The most zealous trans rights advocates are pushing for more access to gender reassignment surgeries and meds and hormones for more people. Everyone, they say, even kids, should have the right to choose their gender identities. But most people squirm at the idea of a 12-year-old boy going to the hospital without parental consent to have his penis surgically removed at taxpayer expense. And that’s the image that anti-trans zealots are working to plant in the minds of us ambivalent normies.
And so the culture wars rage on. No nuances on the extreme ends of the issues and vast social media platforms for zealots to do battle with each other and get those in the middle all squirmy. The culture warriors knock each other out once in a while, but there seems to be a balance to it; i.e., the Dobbs decision spurring conservative state legislatures to pass draconian anti-abortion laws, but then people voting those social conservatives out of office.
Despite all the uncompromising noise by those on the extreme ends of issues, in the end, for better or worse, the nuanced balance of the real world generally wins.
–Dennis C.
Can’t we just talk about the Packers (whining). …or as MM will hopefully remember….when someone, somewhere…I forget…might’ve been at a party and someone…maybe it was even MM, late ‘70s….was playing some Heads or Devo—“new wave”/punk” at the time and…a guy, (probably from Brown County, came up to the dude playing the tunes, got in his face and yelled: I said play some Aerosmith goddammit!
Below is well done. Squirm we must. Those surgeries, during pre-pubescence, (or during puberty…or post…) are tricky. Hell, its hard dealing with kids during those ages as it is. One day it’s one obsession, the next week another, the former gone forever. Yet experts might tell you that this is a critical time for these kids. I say trust the experts. SCOTUS are not the experts, nor is Kari Lake.
Now RoJo…there’s one smart dude.
-D.
I watched that game last night so no, we can’t talk about the Packers…
IMHO, all adults should have every right they can possibly dream of, right up to the point where those rights impinge on other rights of other people. Then a conversation needs to take place, whether the parties want to have it or not.
Children on the other hand, not being miniature adults but in fact a whole other thing, must have a much-conscribed set of rights. Kids, like drunks, are impulsive creatures, thrashing about in a world they can’t quite understand. They have to be protected from themselves. No concealed carry, no face tattoos, and in my opinion, no biological gender modification. I hesitate to qualify these restrictions by “without parental consent”, because frankly a lot of parents are irresponsible (if not outright wacko) themselves. After one turns 18, head straight to the all-you-can-eat smorgasboard of rights and have at it.
By “experts” I wonder if that would be the panoply of transgender movement activists. I hope not. Call me a prude, but I take issue with the sexualization of children. Kids are being sexualized at earlier and earlier ages by society generally and these activists just aggravate the problem. The internet and social media accelerate this process. Kids today have to be so confused about this stuff. LGBTQ+ advocates have contributed to this by confusing the concept of “love” with sexuality. It took going on 50 years for me to figure out that “love” has precious little to do with what is between one’s legs. And it has absolutely nothing to do with a certificate from the state (i.e. marriage license).
I guess I’m not sure who is on the right side of history here. Will the crusaders for transgenderism be the heroes or will they be seen as opportunists who preyed on children in order to advance their political and professional goals? Or somewhere in between (kudos to DC).
Now, how about them Bucks…
MO
I’ll get to the Bucks later since I am your one source there…but first:
Dang!….I thought my leave it to the experts line would skate through. Alas ‘bots are….well, robotic in terms of their cold blooded objectivity.
Not walking it back but I used the leave it to the experts line as a short cut for saying “trust in science: not SCOTUS” (or Rojo, or all the other 2 bit judge/jury/hangmen out there). Same argument for climate change. Yet there is problem with that default which MO quickly zero’d in on. Who the f’ are they Dave?
- Well Mark O. Let me answer that. Uhmm…just a second…wait….I got this…Yeah…ahem: They are these (3) clinical psychiatrists, (not dime a dozen psychologists mind you), at Stanford that have been studying transgender biology, objectively, for 20 years. These (3) can address this. They are the experts. Next question.
…and there-in lies the problem. The expertise on this—to DC’s point about the infinite nuances/cases—are thin and not readily available. Thus, we’ll live in a cluster for quite a while.
Sad Aside: For example. Durant, MS. I was explaining to a friend this week what a great nun I had at Kenosha St. Joes. Sr. Margaret Held. She taught Anthropology and somehow was able to explain, even support Darwin’s theory of evolution—as opposed to “Creationism”. She was a young, hip, habit-less, nun. Well, I decided to google her and found out she turned to nursing…sounded like she may have had a female partner. They did nothing but good deeds in a very poor section of MS for 39 years…until…sorry—they were both stabbed to death by some 49 yr. old in 2016. Dunno…..after their car or pissed at them for not giving him drugs—they worked at a clinic So, the (3), (metaphorical), Stanford shrinks are not available to all. Unsure who covers the transgender kids in Durant.
-D.
Awww man. You google your cool nun teacher only to find that she and her partner were stabbed to death ?!? Argh. How heartbreaking. That sucks so bad. Sorry Dave.
Dennis
Yeah, I agree that the consensus of a large number of experts in a particular field tends to provide reliable info. regarding that field. (Well, that and Tucker Carlson of course). Sources of info can be tricky though. Anyway, all this trans talkin’ has got me going down a rabbit hole of data and studies from experts like psychologists and doctors regarding Transgender-ism.
Skimming the article below provides some stats. Looks like gender dysphoria occurs in about one in 30,000 people born as males and one in 100,000 people born as females. Hmmm. By my crude reckoning that seems like a pretty low percentage of people.
https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/mental-health/gender-dysphoria/gender-dysphoria-statistics/.
So why all the hoopla? Well, it appears that in the last decade or so a new diagnosis called ROGB (rapid onset gender dysphoria) has been applied to a growing number of people, a majority of whom were born female but who no longer identify as female. Female-to-male medical procedures now apparently double the number of male-to-female procedures. This medical industry article breaks this down in a positive way and also provides an unabashed discussion of the profitability of such procedures.
https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/us-sex-reassignment-surgery-market
And here’s a study that hints that this trend is driven more by adolescent social factors than by biological factors. In other words, dare I say, it’s kinda cool for kids to be trans now.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202330
An article from Psychology Today breaks down the above study in layman’s terms and also provides some historical perspectives about how trans people have been accepted for centuries in many other cultures. Interesting.
A little further digging into the rabbit hole turns up some outrage from the trans community regarding this study.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201903/rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria
Okay, I’m climbing out of the rabbit hole for now.
Dennis
Geez Dennis, now you’re going to make us work!
Mark M.
Hey, for this season anyway, it’s easier than talkin about the Packers.
Dennis C.
No CIS person will accomplish anything by trying to debate trans issues with activists or advocates. They are generally too fanatical to engage with rationally. The cis person will only result in being insulted, declared evil and retrograde, and called a bunch of names that they don’t even know existed. The tales that that some parents tell, of trying to understand what their trans kids are going through, are just heartbreaking. On the other hand, parents have been horrible clueless monsters to rebellious teenagers since the beginning of time.
Because I will never spend the time to be an expert on a topic that I don’t really care much about, I only read the Psychology Today articles. The 2018 article discusses “conditions akin to what we now call transgender identity” and proceeds to discuss transvestitism in many cultures. I question how “akin” dressing and acting as one’s non-natal gender is to today’s biological gender modification. There is much acrimony today between “drag” culture and “trans” culture, so I’m not sure they are singing from the same hymnal (terrible analogy I know).
It’s pretty interesting that ROGB is mainly occurring amongst girls. It could be the result of what the experts call mass sociogenic stress response (kinda like Havana Syndrome) or something much simpler, like it’s better to be a man in society than a woman. The only trans person I directly worked with went that way (female to male). My conclusion in observing this person before, during and after their transition is that they did it for career reasons. A very ambitious corporate climber, the career ceiling was going to be much lower and harder to crack as a woman. I totally get it.
MarkO
I wholeheartedly agree with MO and the other bots. I don’t think most kids are intellectually or emotionally equipped to handle a life-changing decision like a sex change—and God knows what their parents are thinking. A sixteen-year-old driving a car is scary enough.
Wouldn’t a set of policies preventing these operations on anyone under eighteen be smart? Granted, it would introduce the concept of delayed gratification to these kids (and I understand many of them are going through hell) but if they can try everything short of surgery, that may affirm a lifetime change would be their correct decision. Or it might prove opposite. Not to say I think the government should step into our non-exclusive bathrooms, but maybe some of these kids need to be protected from themselves—or their parents.
G
As a side note…. It turns out that puberty blockers aren’t necessarily the panacea they may have seemed. Sure, they delay the onset of puberty & the accompanying secondary sexual characteristics. Seem like an ideal detour, to allow the child with gender dimorphism, and parents, time to assess. But it turns out that the onset of puberty also brings on major skeletal and bone development. Children who take puberty blockers for too long will experience issues with bone density. Sigh.
–Mark M.
Good job bots. Some of our best “work”, if you can call it that…
Agreed. Great stuff.