by liberal japonicus
In New York
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/24/nyregion/nyc-democratic-primary-election-mayor
Anyone following closely and can discuss the role of Lander, WTF Clinton was doing endorsing Cuomo, and anything about the ranked choice system, feel free!
The far right fanatics were already crazy on the topic of big (and mostly run by Democrats) cities. And New York City in particular.
But now New York has elected a mayor who not only says he’s a socialist. He’s also (cue major freakout) a Muslim!!!
My possibly ex- friend lives in Manhattan, is as Islamophobic as you can get and hates socialism, but unfortunately we aren’t speaking, so I can’t give reports. I know the kind of crap he reads online, so will be able to guess. Some guy named Craig Huey, who is your typical far right Christian fundamentalist whose posts are basically a checklist of Rapture theology, Islamophobia, hatred of lefties, paranoia etc… sixty years ago his type would be calling MLK a communist agitator.
I hope Mamdani knows how to deal with all the factions he is going to have to deal with, assuming he wins in No ember. Which isn’t at all certain.
Clinton endorsing Cuomo isn’t that much of a puzzler. They are still on the Sanders revenge tour along with all of the Hillary stalwarts in the party, and the neolib moderates are terrified that the progressives will scare all of the straights in the middle of the country. I’m always surprised how much resentment they harbor, and how absolutely rooted they are in trying to recreate the 90s.
But the neolib wing is dead in the water and not going to win anyone’s confidence anytime soon. They have to find a young-ish, economically populist core to build into the new brand.
Was greeted by this headline
Zohran Mamdani’s victory in NYC mayoral primary leaves Wall Street ‘alarmed’ and ‘depressed’
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/25/mamdanis-nyc-victory-leaves-wall-street-alarmed-and-depressed.html
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy defines the marketing devision of the Sirius Cybernetic Corporation as “a bunch of mindless jerks who’ll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes,”
If they’re alarmed, perhaps it isn’t so much by a potential city mayor as by the possibility that it’s a harbinger. The rest of the country, too, might be fed up, and ready for the same kind of Progressive Era that followed the 19th century’s Gilded Age.
Texas and Florida approve of this election.
Obama was a harbinger. That hope and change that people voted for was a real wish.
Sanders’ deep run in the primary vs. Clinton was a harbinger. The DNC reacted exactly like those finance bros with terror and a lack of comprehension that they might have to stop skimming all of the prosperity off the top.
AOC was a harbinger.
Mamdani should come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to the actual people in their districts.
The situation on main street has been dire for a long time and there are no safety margins.
The anger and desperation has only just begun to build. DNC incumbents needs to wake up or they will find themselves in the same situation as the GOP come midterms.
Hold on one minute, there, nous! That sounds like economic anxiety, the very thing that led to MAGA, at least according to many journalists. It really makes me wonder.
Rut Teixeira disagrees. I hope this link lands: https://substack.com/@theliberalpatriot
The situation on main street has been dire for a long time and there are no safety margins.
This ^^^
Wall Street contributes a lot to NYC’s GDP. Which is fine, in an of itself. But NYC is not their personal playground. Other people live there, too, and they need places to live, and they need to eat. And they vote.
The fncking arrogance of the very wealthy in NYC and in the country in general is dragging this country down. Great wealth is not a sign of exceptional virtue or intelligence. It deserves no particular deference from the rest of us.
But the neolib wing is dead in the water
100% agree.
Clinton and Obama were both extraordinarily gifted politicians and public figures. But the programs and approaches they embraced don’t address current conditions.
Time to turn the page.
Rut Teixeira disagrees.
Of course he does. He’s part of the pundit class. He’s busy looking for a national strategy that can be converted into election wins in the next cycle.
They keep making the same mistake, though, of looking at these individual populist wins through the lens of policy positions and mapping them onto polling data so that they can do some prob stat magic and find a winning platform that fits the curve.
AOC and Mamdani won the support of their constituencies by getting out there and meeting with a lot of real people, listening to them, and addressing the real concerns that they have.
There are going to be differences between what Mamdani’s constituents want and need, and what another constituency needs. Many times those wants and needs may be at odds. But the thing that the Dems need to come to terms with is that this is not something that can be top-downed, and the more the platform is at odds with the big needs of the constituents in the member district being represented, the more they are going to be causing anger and frustration – and anger and frustration feeds the amygdala hijack of the right wing noise machine, and the politics of grievance.
What should be taken away from the AOC and Mamdani wins is the importance of listening and responding to the people in your district. The policy and message things arise out of that representation. Policy is not the product that gets them buyers, representation is.
Work out your differences in coalition.
Thanks Nous.
Here’s the part of the analysis that I was struck by
In particular, it’s preposterous that economic populism, by itself, can solve Democrats’ cultural radicalism problem. In a post-election YouGov survey of working-class (non-college) voters for the Progressive Policy Institute, 68 percent of these voters said Democrats have moved too far left, compared to just 47 percent who thought Republicans have moved too far right. It’s a fair surmise that working-class sentiment about the Democrats’ leftism is heavily driven by the party’s embrace of cultural leftist positions across a wide range of issues (immigration, crime, race, gender, etc.) given how unpopular these positions are among those voters.
To call those things ‘leftist’ and ‘radicalism’ is an indication that the overton window has been shoved out of the house.
Democrat’s cultural radicalism problem
Our political discourse has collapsed into a suite of cricket chirps that only crickets with the right code book can decipher. I think I know what this means to centrist crickets, it’s their violent rejection of any policy that might frighten the squishy centrist voters Democrats need to win. But they don’t dare say that out loud, so they grab a handful of the most demonic political adjectives they can think of to register their disgust.
Democrat’s cultural radicalism problem
The Democrats have their cultural radicals. No real question. Some Republicans are radical, too — albeit generally in the opposite direction (but no less radical). The principle difference being that, for the moment, the cultural radicals are in control of the Republican party. At least on the issues that they care about.
Both parties also have very large contingents who are nothing like radical. They generally vote for the party that they have been voting for for years (often decades). But without giving it a whole lot of thought, except in exceptional circumstances.
For both parties, the options are the same: 1) Turn out lots of their voters (including both their radicals, cultural and otherwise, and their reflexive voters) by whatever means necessary. Or 2) craft policies to appeal, not just not frighten but actually appeal, to the non-radical portion of the population which mostly doesn’t bother to vote. Or even pay attention.
Republicans, for the past few decades, have focused on option 1. Democrats remain focused on fighting over which option to focus on. It does not seem to occur to most of them, especially their most active (and loudest) members, that they might do both at once. Of course, that would require some serious changes in the way the party runs. And also slapping down the loudest of the intolerant (and radical) ideological purists.
That will take a leader who hasn’t emerged yet. Although there are some possible candidates on the horizon.
The Democrats have their cultural radicals.
having cultural radicals is not the same as ‘having a cultural radicalism problem’.
Immigration
I think having people from different cultures joining your country is a good thing
oooooo, radical!
I think that in many cases, rehabilitation is better than incarceration.
oooooo, radical!
I think that race has played a factor in the way some Americans have been treated
oooooo, radical!
I think that gender is not a simple binary
oooooo, radical!
Teixeira reveals more about himself than he does about the Democrats.
Liberal japonicus–are the issues you outlined open for debate and discussion? Do matters like this https://open.substack.com/pub/genevievegluck/p/exclusive-trans-identified-male-killer?r=2r6px&utm_medium=ios play a role in the discussion? Can one validly adhere to the gender binary?
Can one validly adhere to the gender binary?
BBB, as you may or may not know, this is one subject on which there is passionate disagreement among lefties on ObWi (or perhaps it’s just me with the others!). I’m in a rush to go to the North Country for the weekend, but I would just like to emphasise for the purposes of any discussion that follows, that lj has a tendency (as do others including Trump) to use “gender” interchangeably with “sex”. Gender critical feminists like myself maintain that sex in humans is essentially binary (with a few very rare exceptions), but that gender is an entirely different matter. It is absurd to use (as WPATH does) the tendency among some children to play with e.g.toy trucks versus barbies as an indication of which gender they “belong” to. Humans are multi faceted and can and should choose whatever presentation they like, and live their lives free from persecution and other abuse. But, since most violent crime is committed by biological males, and 98% of sexual violence ditto, and data supports that trans women in the penal system have committed sexual violence at the same or greater rate as male prisoners, the safety of women necessitates that certain spaces should exclude biological males.
I don’t think so, I don’t want to describe what your argument looks like to me, but it looks like we would just waste each other’s time, so not really interested. I don’t speak for anyone else, but my point is that this doesn’t look like ‘radicalism’, it just looks like assuming that one group can’t speak for everyone.
I posted this and didn’t see what GftNC posted, I’d just point out that gender was the word Teixeira used. I’m sure I’ve confused sex and gender on occasion, but given the amount I’ve written and my age, I’d be surprised if I didn’t. And I’d be really surprised if anyone was 100% consistent on it.
Prisoner in a male prison kills his cell mate. Trans-identifies as female, gets moved to a female prison, rapes his cell mate.
There is clearly a problem here, but I’m not sure it’s this person’s gender identification.
Thank you, russell. I’m not in favor of punishment that is not only collective but pre-emptive. Or of punishing a whole group of people because (sometimes) other people pretend to be one of them.
As to sex…
And as to women-only spaces, I would much prefer asshole-excluding spaces, if energy is going to be spent trying to sort people into carelessly defined types.
Judging from my anatomy and the fact that I’ve borne two children, “gender critical feminists” would surely put me in the box labeled “women.”
But I have never in my life wanted to be in “girl/women only” spaces. (I add “girl” explicitly because this preference goes back to the earliest childhood years I can remember.) Some of the biggest assholes I have ever known have been women, and some of the most wonderful people I know are men. Why I would want the former included and the latter excluded from spaces where I want to be, and by fiat of people with whom I profoundly disagree, is beyond my comprehension.
And as to women-only spaces, I would much prefer asshole-excluding spaces, if energy is going to be spent trying to sort people into carelessly defined types.
Far, far easier to identify an individual’s sex and/or gender than to reliably identify assholes. Extreme cases, yes. But there are, in my experience, a fair number of individuals who are, if you will, asshole-adjacent. Not to mention less than general agreement as to who exactly qualifies.
I definitely endorse the sentiment. But I’m dubious of the feasibility of implementation.
wj…..it was not a serious proposal, with proposals for implementation coming next. It was a comparison to make a point. Part of the point is about exclusion/inclusion. Another part is “who gets to decide for everyone.”
SCOTUS should rename itself as Supreme Shysters of the Bizzaro States after its newest ruling (last of the season). It in essence allows His Orangeness and his goons to ignore birthright citizenship by deciding that lower courts do not have the authority to pass ‘universal injunctions’ no matter how obviously unconstitutional the administrations’ actions are (the majority deliberately refuses to rule on the constitutionality of the EO claiming the right to revoke birthright citizenship). So, specific individuals targeted have to individually get court injunctions for only themselves and up to that point the administration is allowed to to what it wants.
Sotomayor in her dissent (joined by the other two ‘liberals’) leaves no doubt about what she thinks about it and accuses her colleagues of deliberately and in bad faith following the obviously ridiculous arguments of the administration and deliberately ignoring the herd of elephants in the living room by NOT ruling on the constitutionality of the case itself.
Back to the initial topic….Krugman nailed it for me in his substack post today:
https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/mamdani-and-the-moguls-of-madness
Thanks.
wj again — I was running out the door to do errands, but now I wil flesh out my reply. You seem to think that clarifying who’s a “man” and who’s a “woman” is easier than clarifying who’s an “asshole.” I disagree, using my own experiences of being called “sir” in public, and getting skeptical if not outright hostile looks in public restrooms. If someone challenges the appropriateness of my presence in a “women’s” restroom, what then? First, who has standing to challeng? Second, if a challenge is allowed, how is my “right” to be there determined? I go in some back room with a cop and drop my trousers? (But a fully transitioned woman would pass that test.) Genetic testing? Everyone gets a tattoo at birth that stays with them for certain purposes for the rest of their lives?
…
bobbyp — thanks for the Krugman. Nice to see those things being said.
A comment on the Krugman post:
I don’t know that I would ever have made that connection on my own. But, yeah, how about that?
wj — one more clarification and I will stop.
*Defining* who’s which sex may be easier than defining who’s an asshole. Using the link about the genetics that I gave in my 10:29 would provide a starting point, but it would still be a cruel joke if all the variations had to be stuffed into just two bins.
But even if you solved the definition problem by just “plugging it”* in the end, there’s still the implementation problem, which I’ve tried to lay out here more than once in describing my own experiences of not being everyone’s idea of a stereotypically female female. Implementation is bound to be a nightmare for some people. Apparently that’s the price some people have to pay so that other people can dictate who’s who.
*I used to program state tax algorithms. Sometimes they have to be iterated, and sometimes the iteration never resolves. The tax lawyer I worked with would say, “Sometimes you just have to plug it.”
I’m not sure that the way that Teixeira (and the media in general) frame’s the discussion is helpful or productive. They focus on the ideological positions that one holds as the representative measure of their radicalism, and then cherry pick which of those positions count or don’t count in the current political context. It doesn’t help that they all measure the success of their framing in terms of clicks and sustained engagement.
I’m fairly sure that I hold a lot of ideological positions that could be characterized as radical by many people’s standards. I believe that my gay friends should be allowed to marry and should be afforded the same treatment under the law that I and my straight friends are given. I believe that my trans friends should be allowed the same right to personal dignity and to medical privacy that I enjoy. I believe that many standards of mainstream masculine identity are harmful, not just to society in general, but to the individuals that define themselves according to these standards.
And I believe that my personal politics should support these ideals.
Boom…radical.
Except not really. For all practical purposes, I am a moderate. I believe all of these things and want to make space for all of these things in public life, but the way that I think we should adjudicate these matters when there are disputes is not particularly radical. I’m progressive in my personal politics, but liberal in my governing philosophy. I think pluralism is a good thing even when people express that pluralism in ways that I find deeply problematic, I just want to make sure that that expression does not unduly
deprive another of equal right to expression.
Boom…pretty fucking moderate.
And that’s pretty much my standard for these things. Are you committed to trying to maintain a wide and generous plurality, and to good faith in the adjudication of that plurality? Moderate.
Are you committed to trying to reduce plurality in public life and to try to create a more ideologically uniform society based around your own beliefs and values and do you want to privilege those with your own beliefs over others? Radical.
If you can look at the current US administration and their actions and look at AOC and decide that she’s the one with a radicalism problem, then we are headed for a rough patch of road because the American Experiment has been hijacked and vandalized.
As far as I can tell, there is no way to definitively identify an individual as male or female that is not either incredibly intrusive or otherwise undesirable. Either “show me your genitals” or “show me your birth certificate”. Or worse.
As a practical matter, it just seems simpler to accept people as they wish to present themselves. And not just practical, it seems more respectful of an individual’s right to live their lives as they see fit.
That will undoubtedly make some folks uncomfortable, but we are all obliged to make room in our lives and in the world for people who make us uncomfortable. Either that, or make your life small enough that you only have to deal with people you are comfortable with.
As far as (D) centrists go, I don’t see it as a winning strategy. We don’t need an opposition that spends its time seeking “middle ground” with bigots and fascists. We need an opposition that OPPOSES bigotry and fascism. Names it, opposes it, and is able to articulate values that are morally and practically better than bigotry and fascism.
If that seems like a losing proposition, I point you to AOC and Bernie’s red state road show. People aren’t responding to the carefully scripted and focus-grouped crap coming from the institutional (D) party right now. They are responding to folks who are willing to name and call out the obvious. And not just name and call out, but actually do something about it.
People respond to courage. Polite language carefully groomed and manicured so as not to cause offense to whoever, less so.
Also, regarding Teixeira – he opens with this:
And then claims that the problem is that (D)’s are trying to embrace both economic populism and cultural inclusivity. And, are thus losing the working class that should be responding to their economic populism.
I think Teixeira has it wrong.
The problem is that (D)’s *are not looking out for working people*. They are not economic populists.
Clinton brought us NAFTA. Obama responded to the calamitous financial crisis of 2008 by shoveling trillions of dollars to the banks, who gleefully put it in their own pockets.
All of those policies and actions had their justifications, but they DO NOT amount to economic populism. They do not amount to helping working people.
Biden was much more of a champion for working people, but was somehow allergic to taking credit for it.
In my opinion, the whole “pick between economic populism and cultural progressivism” thing is a canard. If you promote policies that actually improve the lives of working people, by far the majority of them aren’t gonna give a damn if gays get married or if some trans person uses the loo.
The reason the (D)’s have lost the working class is because they cut the working class loose. Starting with Clinton, and ever since.
As a practical matter, it just seems simpler to accept people as they wish to present themselves.
Some people insist on presenting themselves as female when they are obviously male. How do you deal with bad actors? Insisting on being female when entering female spaces doesn’t exempt someone from being a pervert who should be locked up.
Insisting on being female when entering female spaces doesn’t exempt someone from being a pervert who should be locked up.
For fuck’s sake. Show me just one person who asserts said exemption should hold. Just one.
Jesus fucking christ.
But back again to Mamdani. Below is a fairly sober assessment of the outlook for his stated policies.
https://cepr.net/publications/mamdani-for-nyc-mayor-big-news/
Enjoy your day.
How do you deal with bad actors?
Short answer – you use your head, like you do in any other case of “bad actors”.
Longer answer – “obviously male” is carrying a lot of water here. What makes maleness “obvious”? Beard and mustache? Trousers rather than a skirt?
Practical answer – how often is this really a problem? How much do we want to skew public policy to deal with extreme edge cases?
Sometimes people just need to pee.
I can picture it now: some muscle-bound incel, twirling his mustache, walks into a women’s restroom declaring “I’m all woman, honey” and … what?
Meanwhile, a flabby, orange pervert strolls through a beauty pageant dressing room and … gets elected (twice!) by conjuring up images of “perverts” preying on delicate womanhood.
Also, of immigrants eating dogs and cats. So I bet most of those who get het up about the men-in-women’s-bathrooms thing would be just fine with aggressively-male ICE agents barging into any women’s bathroom whenever they like.
I grow more disgusted with half the human race every day. The sheeple half, not the trans half.
–TP
Context-free questions of how to police gender and access don’t seem productive. In the vast majority of cases and situations it should not matter. In the cases where it does matter the insistence on making it a matter of gender (or of sex) seems to create a lot of knock-on consequences for innocents that could be avoided by looking at other solutions to the actual problem that do not pathologize entire groups.
Contextual solutions for contextual problems.
Are you committed to trying to maintain a wide and generous plurality, and to good faith in the adjudication of that plurality? Moderate.
Are you committed to trying to reduce plurality in public life and to try to create a more ideologically uniform society based around your own beliefs and values and do you want to privilege those with your own beliefs over others? Radical.
As clear and succinct a definition as I’ve seen.
But back again to Mamdani. Below is a fairly sober assessment of the outlook for his stated policies.
I think that assessment has some serious holes. For example:
The author is apparently unaware of the detail that you do NOT have to prove that someone lives in New York. New York law already taxes any and all income earned in New York, regardless of whether you do, or ever have, lived in New York. I’ve never lived within 2,500 miles of any part of New York state. But I’ve paid New York taxes, simply because a customer was based in New York.
Taxing the rich may be far less difficult than the author expects. Possibly why the rich are in freakout mode; if they could just shift their legal residence to another of their homes, they would just do it and sneer at Mamdani.
wj — where does a person live for purposes of e.g. interest income, or capital gains?
I suspect there’s a lot more leeway there…?
JanieM, my impression is that the critical point is the location of the payer. If the company paying the interest or capital gains is based in New York, you owe tax, regardless of where in the world you are.
I’m not certain how they deal with companies located in New York, but incorporated in, for example, Delaware. Or headquartered in one state but having facilities in New York (or vis versa). My guess is that the answer is “either.”
wj — I should have just looked it up in the first place.
From here:
From here:
As for the location of the payer being critical, I worked for a company in Massachusetts for 33 years, working mostly remotely when my kids were little but spending increasing time in Cambridge in later years.
I worked as a self-employed contractor in the early years and an employee in the later years. Either way, my payer was my company, which was headquartered in Massachusetts, but my state income taxes (MA and ME) were calculated based on how many work days I was physically in each state. (I don’t think the CPA who did my taxes got it wrong….)
Convoluted.
Tax Avoidance Strategies for NY Residents
wj,
I think you need to read the link posted by Charles. The main point asserted by Baker is rich people are very good at finding (or paying others to find) “creative” ways to evade/avoid taxes.
I would argue this is unambiguously true.
So then the question becomes, what tax policy is most effective to ensure the rich pay taxes in full compliance with the intent of tax law? Baker repeatedly plumps for a transaction tax on stock sales as one policy that would ensure full compliance.
bobbyp, my point wasn’t that there were simple means to assure that the rich pay their fair share. It was merely that establishing someone’s (legal) residence isn’t necessary in order to tax them.
Per Charles’ link, NYC (unlike New York state) does not currently tax the income that non-residents earn there. But there’s no reason** it couldn’t start doing so.
** Beyond the obvious political challenges to enacting it.
See also this, on the reality of tax flight.
Briefly, while some do relocate, they are a small fraction of their own (wealthy) social class.
It was merely that establishing someone’s (legal) residence isn’t necessary in order to tax them.
Per Charles’ link, NYC (unlike New York state) does not currently tax the income that non-residents earn there.
These two statements contradict each other. You can’t tax “non-residents” if you don’t establish residency.
Less fuzzily, you can’t have a tax on residents vs non-residents without establishing the taxpayer’s residency somewhere.
wj — re: Ocampo’s article that you linked — on a quick read, he doesn’t mention offshoring of wealth. It’s been on my mind since I listened to John Cole interview Brooke Harrington a while back — this is her specialty. (One of three podcasts I’ve ever listened to. 🙂 And it mostly wasn’t even about offshoring of wealth, it was about her time in Denmark.)
Have just got back from the North Country, and am exhausted by 11 hours of motorway driving within 48 hours, nothing to Americans, I know, but a lot for the English and somewhat exhausting at my age. Have only had a brief moment to scan responses to my comment on sex v gender etc, and will respond at greater length tomorrow or after if it seems worth it, but would just like to say briefly:
1. lj I would in no way wish to imply that you are in any way like Trump by saying you both seem to use sex and gender interchangeably, and I apologise for using your names in the same context. I think this is more an American thing. Only pointing out that they are not interchangeable, and in fact I think I have always been 100% consistent in my usage, because it has always been completely obvious to me that they are completely different things.
2. I think it has been a tragic consequence of this particular culture war that among large parts of the e.g. US and Australian population, and only slightly less large parts of the UK population, gender critical feminists have so successfully been cast as transphobic. In fact, they (certainly ones like me) have been entirely motivated by the protection of women and their hard won rights, as opposed to bigotry or hatred towards trans people. Again speaking for myself and others like me, we wish only safety and wellbeing for trans people, and no diminution of their human rights. In terms of e.g. bathroom use, this may well involve the provision of gender neutral or trans spaces.
Luckily, I have never experienced sexual violence, but as an almost 70 year old woman I certainly experienced (as almost all young women do) that from the ages of approx 14 to 50 I was treated like prey by very large numbers of men who were nothing like those beloved male friends of mine, or presumably of Janie’s, sometimes in places where I felt safe, and often in places where I did not. If there were not women only spaces in numerous places to retreat to, I and many other women would not have felt free to go out and live quite such a normal life. And, although (as I have said many times here) I myself do not now feel uncomfortable sharing public lavatories with trans women, many women have have had experiences which do make them feel uncomfortable, and they should not have to do so. Ditto the many women who have complained about trans women with obvious erections watching them get changed in changing rooms, or young girls at schools developing urinary tract conditions because they don’t want to risk boys harassing them in lavatories to which they are now allowed access. These situations have only arisen since the transactivist push to normalise the concept that women’s rights do not need to be protected, and that where there is a conflict trans rights take priority.
I don’t think that various people on ObWi, or elsewhere in liberal, lefty or progressive America, have any concept how potent a weapon they handed (and are still handing) to the Republicans and the malevolent right when they tried to convince “normal”, non-academic, non-progessive people that there is no such thing as sex, that even if there is it is non-binary (I do of course have various tweets, comments etc by eminent biologists giving a rather different view from the one proposed by the twitter stream that Janie posted), and that, for example, anyone unwilling to say wholeheartedly and for all purposes that “trans women are women” is a bigot or beyond the pale. And an interview I read recently with Sarah McBride indicated that she at least is well aware how damaging this attitude has been.
This comment has gone on longer than I intended, and I am totally exhausted. Clearly I could say much more (about gay rights for example: every GC feminist I know was a passionate supporter for gay rights, equal marriage etc, and in the now-closed Tavistock Centre, staff who were concerned about the treatment of gender-dysphoric youth used to say that the Tavvy was “transing away the gay”), but now is not the right time.
Over and out.
Yeah, it’s really tragic when people aren’t taken at their own self-estimate, isn’t it?
*****
I would say that anyone who isn’t trans, and who proposes “trans spaces” as a solution to anything, is transphobic.
Creating “trans spaces” into which trans people are relegated against their will does not translate to “safety and wellbeing” or “[full] human rights”, it translates to ghettoization of a category of second-class citizens.
I would say that anyone who isn’t trans, and who proposes “trans spaces” as a solution to anything, is transphobic.
You know Janie, your tendency to think the worst, and be so sure of your own righteousness, can be really tiresome. Your willingness to automatically assign bad motives to anyone who disagrees with you makes any kind of reasonable argument very difficult. Some might even say you are, in effect, taking yourself at your own self-estimate.
What is the alternative to women-only spaces and men-only spaces, except gender neutral (which I included, but that didn’t suit your attempt to call me transphobic), or trans spaces? Since this is really always about trans women, what you are really suggesting is that they should have access to women’s spaces, and that the wishes of biological males should (as always) triumph over the wishes and safety of biological females. As the cases of assault, and harassment, and pervy voyeurism mount, it is becoming and will become ever harder to maintain that it (allowing biological males into female only spaces) does not harm women’s sense of security, and even actual safety.
Of course this is not to maintain (and as far as I know nobody does maintain) that all or even most trans women are dangerous. But there are disparate populations of trans women, with different motives, and some of them are dangerous, which means that trans women should not have automatic access to women’s spaces. As someone said to me, just because not all that many people are burglars, it does not stop you locking your front door when you go out.
And, FWIW, I do not know of many (or even any? I can stand to be corrected) instances of trans men committing violent or sexual crimes, whereas it has been established that statistically trans women commit violent crime at the same rate as natal males. So, we come back to the fact that some trans women are dangerous to women, and there is no reason to allow men who are, or say they are, trans to access spaces that other men cannot, and where women deserve to feel safe.
But do, by all means continue to make these kinds of arguments. They played at least some part (and many people, including Sarah McBride, think it may have been a large part) in giving Trump his second term, and there’s still lots of mileage in them. You might sometimes feel doubt about doing the Orange One’s work for him, but certainty of your own impeccable righteousness and purity of intentions should continue to protect you from self-doubt.
I guess we are getting to the event horizon on this, but a few final thoughts.
As a linguist, I think meaning is negotiated. I’m sure I have my own ideas, but those ideas only get some sort of privilege when they are in my own head, when they go out, that privilege disappears. Communication requires that we have to meet people in the middle. So I have a hard time imagining anyone being 100% consistent if they are discussing these issues with others, especially if they are talking across cultures. I still remember when forms changed from asking for sex to asking for gender, but that was more to avoid confusions with sexual activity. There was a joke about a form listing sex and saying that the responses should be yes or no.
It’s interesting that BBBB’s first exchange with me potentially revolved around a similar issue, the question of the word ‘standing’. I took him to mean some sort of legal meaning, GftNC suggested that he was using it in a informal way. It was an interesting observation that I let be, not because I wasn’t interested in it, and absent any acknowledgement from him, it would have been me interrogating BBBB about just what he meant. Not a really useful use of time. If we had this issue with ‘standing’, imagine how fraught it would be to try and disentangle sex and gender with him.
You might sometimes feel doubt about doing the Orange One’s work for him, but certainty of your own impeccable righteousness and purity of intentions should continue to protect you from self-doubt.
Funny, I think this applies to you to perfection, you and your carefully picked statistics and anecdotes and the lawyerlike arguments based on them.
It goes beyond parody when you say that the way other people view you is “tragic.”
That’s all from me.
Not quite all, because I had already started to draft a comment on one more aspect of this debate, as follows.
Years have gone by with this debate boiling up repeatedly on this blog, and I have yet to hear any thoughts from GftNC about how a system meant to keep trans people separate in some spaces is going to work in practice, other than by forcing the entire population to carry some proof of which pigeonhole they’ve been put in. How do we enforce who “goes” where, as it were.
Such a system can’t work “fairly” unless everyone is tagged with their proper category and given an ID to carry from birth onward. But that still doesn’t answer questions like: Who gets to challenge anyone’s right to be in any given space? Who has the right and authority to force someone to present their credentials?
And if anyone thinks a polity that would create and enforce such a system would give a fig for the perpetuation of “women’s spaces” as chosen by “women,” well, I think you’re delusional.
Funny, I think this applies to you to perfection
Why yes, you had made this abundantly clear, which is what makes it so funny. And, regarding statistics, to my astonishment you once (a long time ago, but I was so struck by it I kept it somewhere) said that you could see no reason to do any statistical analysis broken down by sex! I think perhaps the reason for this extraordinary opinion may be becoming clearer.
As for your “parody” comment, it is very revealing. I did not mean (and i think to an impartial observer this was quite clear) that I found it tragic personally, although I am GC, to be perceived as transphobic, I meant that the capture of the discourse around this issue which has decreed that any disagreement with the right-thinking “laws of trans” (e.g TWAW, sex is not binary, etc etc) is by definition transphobic, has rendered this whole issue so toxic that tragically it’s almost impossible to have rational discussion about it. As indeed i would say you have demonstrated. And, since you have never made a secret of how much you detest “lawyerlike argument” wherever it comes from, that too no doubt plays into your kneejerk resort to implied or even open insult, rather than any attempt at calm discussion.
Now, since I have explained that I am exhausted, it is 2.28 a.m. and I have a somewhat difficult day ahead of me, to quote you, that’s all from me.
OK folks, slow deep breaths. Sloooow deep breaths.
I have the feeling (and I know I’m looking in from the outside) that this discussion is conflating two, maybe three, different issues. Overlapping, to some extent, but different. And as a result we are, to some extent, talking past each other. Feel free to unite in disabusing me of my ignorance.
First, we have the issue of women having a need for what they can regard as safe spaces. Which, regrettably but realistically, means men are excluded. Second is whether/when that exclusion should encompass trans women. Third is, and I’m groping for words here, what do we mean by trans.
I think the second is actually the core issue in the discussion. But the third is, as I see it, the root of the problem. Is someone trans at the point that they recognize that they feel like they were born in the wrong body? Or at the point that they start trying to redress the mistake that they perceive? Or at the point where transition surgery has been performed? Or at some other point?
I’m personally unsure where the appropriate line is. My suspicion is that the answer is properly “It depends”.
Specifically, it depends on the immediate circumstances. For example, in situations where gender/sex** doesn’t matter, say a business meeting, I would say that there’s no good reason (that I can see) not to just accept everyone however they wish. Similarly, if we are talking about safe spaces, I don’t see a major problem with accepting someone who has gone thru transition surgery. But, regrettably, there will be some men who will claim to be trans simply to get entre into those spaces. And the
possibilityprobability of such behavior cannot be ignored.No doubt there are nuances I’m missing. But I think it will help keep the discussion productive if we try to make very clear exactly which of the questions we are addressing.
** I write it that way because I have trouble keeping track of which word means what in current usage. Sorry.
I’m not sure what the problem is with logical, evidence-based reasoning. No particular viewpoint is entitled to deference irrespective of reality. GFTNC isn’t manufacturing evidence. Sexual predation under the guise of trans rights is real. Women have enough trouble navigating life, and it springs almost entirely from objective biology, which is then shaped and defined by male-dominated cultural values. Trans-women aren’t the issue, nor are all trans-men.
The debate I see missing is whether female-attracted “trans women” are actually trans or are just male fetishists using others as an entree into women’s places. This may well be the elephant in the room.
My impression is that there is a subset of “trans-women” who are quite vocal, in a negative way, about lesbians refusing to engage with them sexually. Curiously, I see no evidence of a trans-woman subset complaining that straight men will not date them. Quite frankly, I suspect a trans-woman movement complaining of rejection by straight men wouldn’t get much traction.
ISTM, this is a matter of line-drawing: who has access to women’s spaces and who doesn’t. One line is chromosomes, another is whether the woman is actually a fully intact male. Self-ID has proven tragically inadequate and, in a fairer world, proponents of that should be called out.
As a matter of first principle, deference to women trumps (NPI), at a minimum, intact-male rights.
FWIW, i think the most common complaint from trans women about straight men is that straight men want to kill them.
Get single stall toilets open to everyone (toilets for the bodily impaired have always been that way) and the problem can be reduced significantly.
Btw, small facilities often have only a single toilet and there are few complaints (except about waiting times).
Over here many public baths also have unisex changing cabins (between the large changing rooms) and sometimes the same for showers.
Absent ill will a “in case of doubt ask people to use the (single person) unisex option” should be feasible.
But, alas, we know that the main problem is with those who ‘need’ the problem for their own agenda.
Some want the restroom to be the new drinking fountain and trans to be the new black (at least until we can return to the old ways and maybe add cult separated sanitary facilities.).
Sexual predation under the guise of trans rights is real.
show us the data, please.
wj’s breakdown is lacking some particular context. This broke out because of a commenter (whose first comment here was to accuse nous of being a white male giving “gender critical females their marching orders”)
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2024/12/-days-since-the-last-travesty.html
tries to start a conversation about gender. Hilarity ensues.
I’m thinking of how the Trump administration has used the accusation of antisemitism to attack universities. Where is Admiral Ackbar when you need him?
Bobby, US academics, so far, don’t seem interested in this topic. Google Evidence and Data on Trans Women’s Offending Rates. GFTNC may have additional insight.
Yes, Nous was telling women to get in line on the trans issue. Clearly. And that is consistent with a viewpoint that admits no dissent.
That was me.
I’m not female, either biologically or by gender identity. So I am in many ways clueless about the issues women deal with in their daily lives, although my wife and other women in my life have given me some awareness, even if only second hand.
So I am not going to attempt to speak for anyone.
That said, for all the folks who find it unacceptable for trans women to use women-only facilities – what’s the solution?
It’s not always obvious if someone is trans or natal. Do folks have to carry some kind of medically-authenticated ID proving they are one or the other? How many ways will that go sideways?
Are all public toilets, showers, whatever, now going to have to have attendants verifying that anyone entering is of the correct biological gender? What will “verification” consist of? What makes someone of the “correct biological gender”? Is it the sex they were assigned at birth? The presence or absence of the correct gonads?
Are we going to require that trans men use the facilities appropriate to the sex they were assigned at birth? So, trans men – who look like men – are going to use women’s facilties? Will that be helpful or comfortable for biological women concerned about their safety?
Are we going to require trans women to use men-only facilities? Because if you think it might be dangerous for biological women to have trans women sharing their space, it’s pretty much guaranteed that it *will* be dangerous for trans women to use men’s facilities.
What about women who are not trans, but who just present themselves as very masculine, for whatever reason? Will they make biological women uncomfortable? If so, what do we do about them?
I can absolutely understand women not wanting to shower with somebody sporting a visible erection. And I can also understand people – and not just trans people – not wanting to live under some weird regime where we all have to somehow prove we’re of a “correct” gender. And I can absolutely understand trans people not wanting to be placed in a position where they are most surely going to be in physical danger.
So I personally don’t see a solution here other than everybody chilling out and dealing with situations as they arise, in context. Which also seems unlikely, especially the “chilling out” part, because people’s safety is involved.
But all the people calling for keeping trans out of gender-specific places need to explain how that’s going to work, in a way that doesn’t put trans people’s lives in danger. Because they will be in danger.
I’m sure there are cases of biological women being harrassed and assaulted by rando dudes dressing up as women. I am going to hazard a guess and say that the number of those cases is dwarfed by the number of trans people who have been assaulted and killed, for being trans.
If there’s a solution here, it needs to account for all of that.
I’ll also say that the whole mantra of “the (D)’s lost because of trans people” pisses me the hell off. This is already long, so I’ll leave that for another time.
That was BBB in his/ her/ their days of trollish one liners but BBB doesn’t do that anymore. So I still disagree with BBB most of the time, but it’s over substance,.
On the substance here, I don’t have much but are there a lot of attacks in women by trans women in or out of public restrooms? I haven’t tried tracking that down, so I won’t pontificate except to say you want to be really careful about punishing a bunch of innocent people and look for solutions that don’t do that.
If women are showering with men in public restrooms having an erection, um, gross. Definitely not something women should ever be subjected to. Not even something I would have liked at the YMCA when I was there but it never happened and if it did I was only facing a bit of discomfort, not fear of what might happen next. Do things like this happen? I am very ignorant on the subject.
But Russell is right about the dangers for transwomen too.
There is apparently a huge amount about this I don’t know.
Before trans people got on the horizon, there were usually local ordinances that outlawed one sex from using the private facilities of another. This worked fine forever. Things have changed. A line either will or will not be drawn. It’s a policy decision. I opt for either biology or surgery as the line.
Donald, trolling may be matter of perspective. Snarki snarks routinely without criticism, and I have no issue with that. Bobby has a sharp pen. No problem there. My take is that unrepresentative but pointed observations are deemed trolling by some whereas well-received but pointed observations are merely pithy, if not entertaining.
Before trans people got on the horizon, there were usually local ordinances that outlawed one sex from using the private facilities of another.
A couple of things.
First, trans people have been around forever. They are not a new and novel phenomenon. What’s newly “on the horizon” is trans people as a political football. Some of that is because they have begun making themselves more visible in an attempt to get a basic level of recognition. And some of that is because a lot of people think they’re weird scary freaks and would like them all to just go away.
Second, those ordinances are still in place in many areas. And in fact, in some areas, the laws have been changed to specifically ban transgender people from using facilities for their gender identity.
And in all the places where laws have been or are in place restricting access based on biological sex, transgender people have been using the facilities that correspond to the gender they present as. Like, forever. Because nobody has been looking down their pants or at their birth certificates to see who they “really are”.
I appreciate the concerns of women who find the idea of having to share spaces like showers and restrooms with people who have a penis disturbing. Those concerns are absolutely legitimate.
But I don’t see a way to enforce the stuff you are calling for that won’t be unbelievably intrusive. How do you plan to enforce the “biology or surgery” line?
If you make trans people use restrooms of the gender they do *not* present as, a lot of them are going to get the shit beat out of them. Because a lot of people hate them and are afraid of them. It happens now, all the time.
If you use public restrooms with any frequency, you have almost certainly shared a restroom with a trans person at some point. And you’ve lived to tell the tale. Most likely, you did not even know.
Russell, feeling bad for women isn’t enough. I referenced a study for Bobby. The law needs to speak to, not merely give a nod to, women’s safety. You might want to give it a look.
Enforcement is never going to be perfect. Non-female attracted trans women will not stand out because they will simply go about their business. Female attracted trans women who exhibit predatory or inappropriate behaviors will hopefully see the authorities called. I want women to have a remedy.
As for violence to trans women in restrooms, I’d need to see objective, non-adversarial data.
It annoys the hell out of me that the Dem leadership thinks policy wins or loses elections. Take a look at reality: Few people know what policies go with which party, even fewer have more than a minimal awareness of what the policies actually are, and many if not most vote based on brand or emotional reaction to what they see.
The right way for Dems to react to ANYTHING Republicans say or ANYTHING media hacks ask is to never apologize, never explain and always attack. People aren’t looking for a shopping list of policy proposals. They are looking for someone who is assertive, the happy warrior type, the takes-no-shit type, the person who presents as strong.
The problem with old guard Dems is the waffling. When asked about Mamdani, they respond with mushy stuff about how maybe he should clarify this or that which makes them look weak and scared. They should say, “The mayor’s race in NYC is the business of the voters of NYC and what we need to be discussion is the business of the nation. Right now in Congress the Republicans are looting the middle class to benefit billionaires.”
That formula can be used on all Rethug hater cultural bullshit. “Trans kids are humans and should be treated with dignity–as we all should be. The Billionaire Bail out Bill is an attack on the dignity of every citizen…” Or “There never was an open border and immigrants are the backbone of the rural economy. The people being kidnapped and deported are not criminals. (Then tell a story). Etc. it’s not hard.
Refuse to engage in discussion of Rethug false issues. Refuse to engage in discussion of their smears and slanders. Refuse to allow Democrats to be on the defensive. Always make every conversation about about REthugs.
It’s not hard, for Chrissake. Why can’t Dem leaders figure this out?
Female attracted trans women who exhibit predatory or inappropriate behaviors will hopefully see the authorities called. I want women to have a remedy.
Yes, as do I.
Substitute “people” for “trans women” in the above and AFAICT that is (a) what exists now and (b) is a sufficient solution.
Right? Somebody assaults or harasses you, you call the authorities. What will a ban on transgender women in women’s bathrooms add to that?
Information about violence toward transgender people, whether trans women, trans men, in bathrooms or wherever, is widely available. Trans people are subject to violence, because they are trans, on the regular.
Concerning the specific question of transgender people using restrooms of the sex they were assigned at birth, here is a place to start.
First, trans people have been around forever. They are not a new and novel phenomenon. What’s newly “on the horizon” is trans people as a political football.
russell, I don’t think that’s really what changed. I think what changed was the availability of surgery to reconstruct someone’s visible genitalia. Make that, if not readily available, at least findable. Because without that, being trans was known to the individual (that’s been around forever), and perhaps a few people in whom they dared confide.
But it’s not really feasible to scare people for political purposes if there aren’t visibly enough people in the threat class. You can try to demonize cross-dressing, and a few people may be upset. But scared? Not so much. After all, as soon as the clothing starts coming off….
But it’s not really feasible to scare people for political purposes if there aren’t visibly enough people in the threat class.
Would that that were so. All the commies in Joseph McCarthy’s imagination would like to have a word. All the pet-eating immigrants, likewise.
The wider availability of gender reassignment surgery is undoubtedly a factor, especially when the spectre of “sending your boy to school and he comes back a girl” is bruited about by, among other people, the freaking POTUS. But the animus toward transgender folks is hardly limited to those who have had surgery.
Conservatives used to be able to use “the gays” as the thing that was going to destroy the nation. Allowing gays to marry was going to undermine the family and the institution of marriage generally, and was going to destroy the nation.
Then, gay people gained the ability to marry and… none of that happened.
So conservatives needed a new chew toy. Transgender people had the temerity to try to expand the social and political legitimacy that had been extended to gays to themselves, so they are now the new evil menace.
They’re going to groom your kids! Schools are gonna cut your sons’ penis and your daughters’ breasts off! Trans women are going to invade ladies’ rooms and rape and harrass your wives and daughters!
Right?
I’m pretty sure most folks – including myself – would agree that women should be able to take a shower without sharing the space with somebody that has an erect penis.
But transgender people are just trying to live their freaking lives without hiding, and without getting beat up. And they’d like to pee when they aren’t home.
That seems like it should be achievable.
In places where transgender people have been given the right to use restrooms corresponding to the gender they present, there has not been any kind of rise in trans woman on cis woman assaults. See the cite in my previous comment. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.
US academics, so far, don’t seem interested in this topic. Google Evidence and Data on Trans Women’s Offending Rates. GFTNC may have additional insight.
I’m a US academic. I’ve read a lot of these studies and arguments and position papers. My dear friends and colleagues, both feminist and trans-activists have engaged with these issues repeatedly.
I’ve seen a lot of data that seems to indicate that trans-people are more likely than cis-women to be arrested for sexual assault. This seems to be true both for trans-men and for trans-women. The fact that it seems to be true for both raises problems for the arguments that it’s a born-woman vs. born-man thing (and I find the “born-…” framing problematic, and am using it only in acknowledgement that this is the GCF framing in these arguments).
Are we really arguing over criminality by demographic group? How is this considered unproblematic when discussing trans-people, when the very same argument could be used regarding young black males? Does anyone here want to step forward and argue for white-only spaces? Maybe we can have separate facilities for young black males? Oh, and what to do about the young black males who are light skinned enough to pass? How do we police who gets access? It’s not animus against young black men, it’s just public safety. The numbers support it.
I would hope that we can all accept that the offending rates data are fraught and that blackness should not be treated as if it is instrumental in driving criminality.
I do not see any reason to think that trans-criminality is any less fraught.
As for the “there are only two biological sexes” arguments – as I have said before, even if we were to take this as a scientific fact, I don’t think that the issues we are dealing with are straightforward issues of gamete expression. It’s not the difference that makes a difference (see the trans-men criminality figures referenced above).
What we are dealing with here are not simple scientific facts. We are dealing with questions of how to interpret data and how to make collective decisions about how best to support human rights. Good luck extracting that process from the human biases that affect our judgment.
I’m not saying all this as a cis-male who benefits from patriarchy. I’m saying it as a scholar whose trans- and intersectional feminist colleagues are not present to make these arguments on behalf of their own stakes in these matters.
Russell, I’m not saying it has to be a big group. Certainly McCarthy’s claims of large numbers of commies were nonsense. But there were, in fact, a significant number of communists (or, at least, claiming to be communists) in the world, and some tiny number of real believers in the US. So all it took was a one or two real cases for him to work from.
Similarly, there needed to be a number of surgically transitioned people, and a couple of high profile ones, to put the concept into the general perception. I’m definitely not faulting Caitlyn Jenner for being herself. But I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that she helped give the bigots (and especially the demonizers) a lever.
That was the point I was attempting to make. The demonizers don’t do well inventing threat groups out of whole cloth. They can do it, and have done it. But it’s far
Russell, the evidence I found regarding trans assault in bathrooms is self reported and joins verbal harassment with assault and does not break the numbers down further. The percentage of respondents reporting harassment/assault was 10%. I could not determine the sample size. As for “no evidence” of assault by trans women, that is not true: chrome-extension://afaidnbmnnnibpcglclefindmkaj://le.utah.gov/interim/2024/pdf/00000577.pdf
I hope this link functions. You can google the charges against London County. There are fairly numerous anecdotal reports. But the larger flaw is confining the issue to assault. There is a large range of non-criminal or at least ambiguous behavior that sexual predators can and will engage in.
It is zero comfort that a woman is free to make a complaint after she has been raped or assaulted.
Separate point I don’t want to get buried at the end of the previous post…
I’m sure that the Dems have lost some votes over people getting upset when they hear some Democrats saying “trans-women are women.” The same can be said about “toxic masculinity.”
I’m not going to argue that we should throw feminists under the bus because feminism has been packaged in a way that has made young men feel threatened. That’s a devil’s bargain.
I think the same is true for how we show solidarity with trans-people over those who want us all silenced.
It’s your conscience, though. I can’t do the moral math for you.
Russell, the evidence I found regarding trans assault in bathrooms is self reported …
First, I agree, it is zero comfort to *anyone* if their only remedy to being assaulted is calling the authorities afterwards. Your proposed remedy is to not allow trans women to use women’s bathrooms. Or, maybe, not allow trans women with a penis to use women’s bathrooms.
I’m still waiting to hear how that gets enforced without (a) everyone carrying around their birth certificate and producing it when they use a public toilet, or (b) look down everyone’s pants before they use a public toilet.
If you are depending on “well, this person looks like they are probably a woman” you are opening up a whole other can of worms. Like, who makes the call? Plus, it won’t exclude a very large number of trans women, and may well make life a lot more complicated for a lot of cis women.
So explain how this is going to work, please.
In any case, here’s the game you are playing.
You put some substack account up of a person who was in male prison, killed his roomate, then identifies as female, goes to a women’s prison, assaults his female roomate, and that is evidence that letting trans women into a woman’s bathroom will result in more assaults against cis-gender women by trans women.
Then I share a link to an… actual set of studies, with, you know, numbers. You don’t like it – can’t find the sample size, not enough people reporting assault, numbers aren’t broken down enough. So you don’t bother to address it.
So I’m kinda losing interest in discussing this with you further.
As an aside, do you all know there’s an app that trans people use to find unisex bathrooms? It’s called Refuge, if you know any trans people, you might want to hip them to it.
Because they don’t want to deal with this shit, either. People’s bigotry, people making comments to them when they’re just trying to go to the bathroom, people threatening them and worse than threatening them.
They aren’t trying to storm the cis bathrooms of the world, they are trying to stay the hell away from all of it.
It’s like the Green Book used to be for black people. Don’t to here, you’ll get trouble. Go here instead, it’s mostly safe. That’s how they are obliged to live their lives. I’m glad it’s available to them, nonetheless.
People should be allowed to live their lives as they see fit, whatever that looks like. Trust me when I say there are lots of folks I would rather not have to be around, but it’s a big world so I just mind my own business and let it be.
Trans people are the new bogeyman, and the current administration and conservatives in general are doing their damnedest to make everybody hate and fear them. It’s fucking evil, in my opinion, and it gets people beaten up and killed.
Over and out.
Russell, no worries.
Nous, how do we protect women who want physical privacy from men?
Sorry, not quite over and out.
BigBadBird invited me to google Loudon County transgender assault. I did so, and this popped up.
Tl;dr – the aggressor was a serial predator with previous incidents of sexual harrassment and assault. Loudon County school administrators transferred the kid to another high school without giving the new school a good heads up about all of it, and in general handled the situation poorly. Net/net, the kid assaulted a girl at the new high school.
The conservative claim is that the kid is transgender and the school’s policy of allowing transgender girls access to the girl’s room was a factor in the incident.
The grand jury report says the policy had nothing to do with it, the school admins handled a serial sexual predator very badly. The kid’s alleged gender identity issues were irrelevant, says the grand jury.
I’m sure there are transgender people who behave very badly. They should be treated like every other kind of person who behaves very badly. And folks should not assume that being transgender predisposes anybody to behaving badly, and in particular to assaulting other people.
I can’t think of a way to restrict transgender people’s access to public accommodations without creating a very large host of other, worse problems. And I have yet to see anything remotely like evidence that making bathrooms accessible to transgender people has any effect on the degree to which they are responsible for assaults of any kind.
I can understand why some, maybe many, women might be uncomfortable with biological men using ladies’ rooms. I can completely understand why pretty much all women would not want to take a shower with a person sporting an erect penis. Or even a non-erect penis.
And I can understand why transgender people feel they are being singled out for ostracism and attack. Because they *are* being singled out for ostracism and attack, often literal physical attack.
So, two competing concerns. And the way we handle cases where there are competing concerns in this country ought not to be to demonize an entire class of people. It quite often *is* the way we handle them, but it should not be.
A dose of reality would be helpful here. Along with a big dose of mind your own business.
how do we protect women who want physical privacy from men?
I would say, from the standpoint of public restrooms and gyms, that this tends to sell women short. They can and do “take care of themselves” in many circumstances.
You may find interesting that the communist hellhole of Seattle’s SeaTac airport is in the process of constructing new unisex bathrooms throughout the terminal. Urinals are gone, and the stalls go floor to ceiling to provide privacy. Users share the lavatories. This undoubtedly increases the percentage of males washing their hands after doing their business. Most complaints I have heard are from males whining about now having to wait for a stall to open up. Poor dears.
Given the immense traffic 24/7, safety does not appear to be an issue.
I think the privacy issue is separate from the assault issue.
Separate shower stalls with privacy seems like the low hanging fruit answer here. I think most people would appreciate that. I would have liked it at the Y.
As for violence, I think we are back to the issue of not punishing the vast number of innocent people because of the bad actions of a few., and there isn’t a way to keep transwomen out anyway, supposing someone passes a law, unless we have guards checking Sexual identity ID’s. I would think a person of any gender who wants to commit a sexual assault usually tries to figure out how to do this when it is just the assailant and the intended victim present. Whether or not they are allowed in a bathroom doesn’t seem like it gives prospective criminals , though again, this is not exactly an area where I am well read.
Some of the instigators of the anti-trans demagoguery are also vehemently opposed to unisex restrooms. I believe I remember even attempts to have them made illegal.
Another reason to be for them (at least as an addition) for these guys clearly fear that this could be part of peaceful solution which would make their work much more difficult.
BBB – bobbyp has my answer covered if we are talking about public restrooms.
Likewise, if we are talking about the safety of women’s restrooms now, plenty of (unambiguous) men manage to find their way into them in order to assault women, and these bathroom bills do not change the physical safety of women’s restrooms, they just make trans-women have to either go into (even more dangerous for them) men’s rooms, hope to pass, or live with discomfort while trying to find a safe place to pee.
It’s not about actual safety, it’s performative safety theater that singles out trans-people for surveillance.
Public changing and showering spaces could do a lot to provide more privacy for their users. Again, it’s not as if bills excluding trans-people from shower spaces makes women’s shower rooms any more secure. There was a huge problem with sexual assault in military showers during the Iraq war such that men and women alike would end up taking neck knives with them into the showers. Physical safety measures will do more for safety than will an onerous policing scheme aimed at trans-people.
I’m more ambivalent about events like MichFest, or strict Dianic Wicca, or other such private sphere womyn’s gatherings. I’m more concerned with public policy.
An instructive example for this: a few years back one of the national Christian organizations aimed at providing on-campus student fellowship ran into difficulty because it insisted that any member who held office on campus be a practicing Christian and adhere to the organization’s doctrinal statement. I never objected to the organization being active on campus, but I did believe that if they wanted to make use of campus facilities, they needed to follow campus non-discrimination guidelines for sanctioned organizations or find a place off-campus but nearby for their religious services.
Allowing men acces to women’s spaces based on self id takes an already difficult situation and makes it worse. Plus, we haven’t gotten to women’s shelters, medical exams, bathhouses, etc. my vote is no men.
What is my friend C. to do? These bathroom bills would have him and his full beard forced to walk into a women’s room every time he had to pee – every time at great physical risk of being attacked.
“Hey buddy, what do you think you are doing?”
Do we revoke his ID and force him to carry one that says he is female, and to betray his own sense of self every single time nature calls? When asked about his presence there in the Women’s room are you forcing him to continuously acquiesce to his public othering in order to live a public life?
That seems to be what the trans-suspicious solution here entails.
I don’t recall any discussion about limiting access to men’s spaces based.
The disproportionality between the amount of public discussion of this issue and the number of actual documented cases of harassment and assault leads me to the conclusion that many of those debating it might have ulterior motives.
There are so many issues related to violence against women, misogyny and discrimination that the trans bathroom question seems rather marginal and comparatively easy to resolve, as far as that is possible.
The so-called “bathroom bills” ban transgender people from using bathrooms or facilities consistent with their gender identity in government-owned buildings (courthouses, schools, correctional facilities, etc.)
Men’s rooms, changing rooms, etc. are gendered spaces and fall under the ban. So, yes, men’s rooms as well.
And if one thinks that the public will restrict their surveillance to government owned properties, one is not cognitively well aligned with reality.
All of these bills are, in effect, incitement to vigilantism as far as enforcement is concerned.
But, as when gay rights we were first being thrashed out (as opposed to non-existent), the number of actual cases only matters if that number is large. So long as it is small, or even zero, it’s irrelevant to the issue.
That may seem both unfair and exceptionally stupid. Because it is. But it is also reality. To get to where we need to be, we have to go with small steps. For example, as low an opinion as many of us have of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, it was probably a necessary step on the way for gay rights.
I would far rather that it hadn’t been, but I’m pretty sure it was. And I expect we will be faced with multiple similarly distasteful compromises and partial solutions along the way when it comes to trans rights.
That was BBB in his/ her/ their days of trollish one liners but BBB doesn’t do that anymore. So I still disagree with BBB most of the time, but it’s over substance,.
That first one liner was Dec 2024. Given the much longer history of opining here about this issue, the ability to dismiss what nous says as ‘Yes, Nous was telling women to get in line on the trans issue,’ either a deep knowledge of ObWi (along with an ax to grind) or a person who is confident about opining on people’s opinions after only a brief glance at what they have written. People can decide for themselves, but failing to keep that context is probably a mistake.
For people who want to talk about this issue, you may want to listen to Ezra Klein’s interview of Sarah McBride.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlbNFsAGFRc
transcript here behind a paywall
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-sarah-mcbride.html
If you don’t know who McBride is before you click on this link, you should stop talking about trans rights in America.
One point that Klein makes (that I have to restate from memory because I don’t have access to the transcript) is that given how he himself has a powerful urge to not be disruptive or do things that make other people feel uncomfortable, he says that power of gender dysphoria, that it would make people want to place themselves in situations that are inevitably going to cause those situations, must be deep and profound and the discussion of banning trans people is deeply unempathic. And, I would add, given the lack of experience that most of us have with people who are transgender, should make us very very hesitant to be discussing it.
That was BBB in his/ her/ their days of trollish one liners but BBB doesn’t do that anymore. So I still disagree with BBB most of the time, but it’s over substance,.
That first one liner was Dec 2024. Given the much longer history of opining here about this issue, the ability to dismiss what nous says as ‘Yes, Nous was telling women to get in line on the trans issue,’ either a deep knowledge of ObWi (along with an ax to grind) or a person who is confident about opining on people’s opinions after only a brief glance at what they have written. People can decide for themselves, but failing to keep that context is probably a mistake.
For people who want to talk about this issue, you may want to listen to Ezra Klein’s interview of Sarah McBride.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlbNFsAGFRc
transcript here behind a paywall
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-sarah-mcbride.html
If you don’t know who McBride is before you click on this link, you should stop talking about trans rights in America.
One point that Klein makes (that I have to restate from memory because I don’t have access to the transcript) is that given how he himself has a powerful urge to not be disruptive or do things that make other people feel uncomfortable, he says that power of gender dysphoria, that it would make people want to place themselves in situations that are inevitably going to cause those situations, must be deep and profound and the discussion of banning trans people is deeply unempathic. And, I would add, given the lack of experience that most of us have with people who are transgender, should make us very very hesitant to be discussing it.
BBB now argues for positions. We might think the arguments are wrong , but that is what the blog was meant to be ages ago. People argue and we can see how good or bad the arguments are. That is all I am going to say on this meta subject.
On McBride, I read most of it ( only most because my iPad freezes up with long NYT articles but I will try to get through it.)
It was very very good. I also thought what she says isn’t in the spirit of your recommendation, which is ironic.
“ If you don’t know who McBride is before you click on this link, you should stop talking about trans rights in America.”
But yes, people should read or listen to her.
Her point, from what I read, is that the left has made a mistake by getting too far ahead of people and trying to browbeat them rather than persuade them.
I think that is right on many issues, including the ones I rant about. I don’t have the best personality for this— I lack patience. And some people are a lot worse than I am. I am not saying we ranters should shut up, but we aren’t always the best at persuading people new to an issue. And if it is personal, only saintly people can be expected to be patient. Sarah McBride seemed pretty saintly to me, what you would wish to see in all politicians.
To be very very clear, she is talking about well- intentioned people who don’t know that much about a given issue,, which presumably describes all of us here on one issue or another. She isn’t talking about hard line opponents of ( insert issue here) who might be vile or racist or selfish or bigoted in one form or another. Those people you just try to outvote.
BBB now argues for positions. We might think the arguments are wrong , but that is what the blog was meant to be ages ago. People argue and we can see how good or bad the arguments are. That is all I am going to say on this meta subject.
On McBride, I read most of it ( only most because my iPad freezes up with long NYT articles but I will try to get through it.)
It was very very good. I also thought what she says isn’t in the spirit of your recommendation, which is ironic.
“ If you don’t know who McBride is before you click on this link, you should stop talking about trans rights in America.”
But yes, people should read or listen to her.
Her point, from what I read, is that the left has made a mistake by getting too far ahead of people and trying to browbeat them rather than persuade them.
I think that is right on many issues, including the ones I rant about. I don’t have the best personality for this— I lack patience. And some people are a lot worse than I am. I am not saying we ranters should shut up, but we aren’t always the best at persuading people new to an issue. And if it is personal, only saintly people can be expected to be patient. Sarah McBride seemed pretty saintly to me, what you would wish to see in all politicians.
To be very very clear, she is talking about well- intentioned people who don’t know that much about a given issue,, which presumably describes all of us here on one issue or another. She isn’t talking about hard line opponents of ( insert issue here) who might be vile or racist or selfish or bigoted in one form or another. Those people you just try to outvote.
Hi Donald.
There is an element of clickbait in the title (is a politics of grace really something that just should happen on the left? Is it indicative of something that it is never held out as something the right should do?) Yes, you could argue that I’m going against her recommendation, but I feel like I am following what she did with Nancy Mace.
As novakant suggests, some people debating this may have ulterior motives and if you live in the US and are debating this _here in this space_ and you don’t know who McBride is, that probability goes through the roof. Since we know virtually nothing of who bbb is, at least for me, it is up to him (I’m assuming male) to share some of his experiences and why he is making so many claims about what happens in bathrooms.
Hi Donald.
There is an element of clickbait in the title (is a politics of grace really something that just should happen on the left? Is it indicative of something that it is never held out as something the right should do?) Yes, you could argue that I’m going against her recommendation, but I feel like I am following what she did with Nancy Mace.
As novakant suggests, some people debating this may have ulterior motives and if you live in the US and are debating this _here in this space_ and you don’t know who McBride is, that probability goes through the roof. Since we know virtually nothing of who bbb is, at least for me, it is up to him (I’m assuming male) to share some of his experiences and why he is making so many claims about what happens in bathrooms.
Sorry, one more from me. wj wrote:
But, as when gay rights we were first being thrashed out (as opposed to non-existent), the number of actual cases only matters if that number is large. So long as it is small, or even zero, it’s irrelevant to the issue.
Not sure if I’m parsing this correctly, but for gay rights, the actual cases were gay people wanting to be granted the same rights as straight people and the number was small because there were any number of social factors at play, hence ‘in the closet’. For the cases we are discussing here, it seems to be the majority claiming their rights and safety are being trampled on. So in this case, a small number of cases actually tells us the opposite. At least if I’m understanding wj correctly.
A few more things
Anyone discussing this should be familiar with the HRC report
https://reports.hrc.org/an-epidemic-of-violence-2024#epidemic-numbers
from my point of view as a linguist, I find the change from gender-nonconforming to gender expansive interesting.
This piece is about Peter Putnam, not about the trans issue, but for me, it tells about the loss we all face when can’t accept people for what they are.
https://nautil.us/finding-peter-putnam-1218035/
I think it is worth a read.
Her point, from what I read, is that the left has made a mistake by getting too far ahead of people and trying to browbeat them rather than persuade them.
I think you need both the ranters and the persuaders. The ranters are the ones who raise the issue, and keep it in view. But, as noted, they rarely persuade anyone. On their own, they are usually counterproductive.
BUT, ranters can be useful to the persuaders precisely because they are, for most people, so noxious. The persuaders can point at them and start a conversation with something like “Those people are nuts. But rational people like us [i.e. both the persuaders and those being addressed] can have a calm discussion of the issue.”
In the long run, the persuaders are the ones who change the culture, which is what is needed. Not to condem those who are outraged and rant. Just to say that some are outraged, but force themselves to remain calm. And frequently are condemned by the ranters for their trouble.
I will say something for my fellow ranters, wj. I honestly thought you were going to be fair to us and say you need both but it turned out we only serve as bad examples for the nice centrist compromisers. Ah well, better than nothing. Or worse than nothing but not nothing at least.
You need ranters because they actually do persuade some people and because they generally are the first people to notice some injustice that the centrists ignore precisely because as centrists they stick to what sensible centrist people do. . I mean, that is just obvious, almost self evident. Most white people just accepted slavery as the way things were and then the abolitionists and escaped slaves came along. The same for men all content to have the vote and then there were those radical suffragettes with their crazed notions.
But not everyone is convinced by that Also, some may be fanatical and violent and turn people off ( though that can go either any— John Brown inspired some, turned off others). So you need some people a bit calmer, the Abraham Lincoln types. See wj,nhow nice I am being, I am giving you Lincoln as centrist. He actually wasn’t. The centrists just before the Civil War would be Stephen Douglas, maybe. Lincoln moved steadily left.
But centrists are needed when you finally want to put things into law and make this new idea a settled part of how we look at things. You need those pragmatic centrist politicians in the final stages.
I honestly thought you were going to be fair to us and say you need both but it turned out we only serve as bad examples for the nice centrist compromisers. Ah well, better than nothing.
Donald, I draw your attention to this
That’s rather more than just serving as bad examples, I submit.
I have my doubts about how many are convinced by ranting. More than zero, certainly. But, I think, only a tiny fraction of the number needed to accomplish the ends that the ranters desire. I’m open to counterexamples, but nothing leaps to my mind. Perhaps you can help me out.
See wj,nhow nice I am being, I am giving you Lincoln as centrist. He actually wasn’t.
I appreciate the effort. Just two things. First, Lincoln wasn’t a centerist, especially on the subject of slavery. He was hesitant to take various action as President, for political reasons. But there’s no real doubt about his views on the subject. Not even at the time. And those views were nowhere near the center of public opinion — hence his caution.
Second, “centerist” isn’t the same as not participating in ranting. A centerist, as I understand the term, shifts position as the environment around him shifts. Joe Biden would be a case — he was pretty consistently in the middle of opinion within the Democratic Party, as that middle shifted substantially on some issues.
One can be firmly convinced on an issue, but recognize that people will generally only accept large changes in relatively small steps (absent traumatic events). In which case, use persuasion to take those steps. Then, give people time to adjust. When they have, move on the persuading for the next. If you hate waiting, use the time to push for small steps on an unrelated issue. (Heaven knows there are multiple areas where change is desirable.)
I already talked about the abolitionists. Annoyed some, convinced others. Later Lincoln came along, a practical politician but he moved to the left.
I think this is true of all such cases.
Also, we are oversimplifying. There is a gradation here from centrists who don’t join the issue until the very end to violent radicals and everything in- between. I am pretty far from being as extreme as some on the Palestinian issue, for example. And some people have my exact views and are pretty damn saintly in demeanor— Peter Beinart, for example. Reducing all this to a binary opposition ofradicals vs centrists is fun in a blog comment section, but a bit silly if taken too literally.
“ One can be firmly convinced on an issue, but recognize that people will generally only accept large changes in relatively small steps (absent traumatic events). In which case, use persuasion to take those steps. Then, give people time to adjust. When they have, move on the persuading for the next. If you hate waiting, use the time to push for small steps on an unrelated issue”
McBride said this, more or less.
Going to bed.
Part 1:
There’s a lot to get through, so I’m going to break this into two comments. In no particular order:
1/ I agree with Donald, and think McBride is impressive. Her approach, and understanding of what has happened, and how doctrinaire trans activism spooked the horses (or in fact the electorate), seems absolutely right to me. Where I disagree with her is her supposition that a slower, incremental approach will eventually bring about all the change that she and the trans activists want, and think is inevitable. I don’t think that will happen, and for good reasons, but I do think that the heat and toxicity around this issue will diminish to the advantage of trans people and everyone else.
2/ I am impressed with BBB’s journey from troll to someone who is prepared to debate in a civil manner. I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, and wait to see how their style develops. On the subject of their comment “’Yes, Nous was telling women to get in line on the trans issue”, I am afraid I agree with them. I myself remember nous telling me pretty much exactly that, and I was shocked and slightly horrified. However, since I have reason to value nous’s good faith, and anyway I notice his approach (and maybe even opinion) has shifted slightly and become more nuanced, it has become possible to discuss the issue calmly with him. I value this. And I agree with Donald very emphatically when he says “We might think the arguments are wrong , but that is what the blog was meant to be ages ago. People argue and we can see how good or bad the arguments are.”
3/ On “the lack of experience that most of us have with people who are transgender”, I can’t speak for the rest of you but this does not apply to me. I had for many years (she is dead now) a close friendship with a trans woman who transitioned in her 50s, after having concealed her feelings since childhood, fathered children, and become a reasonably senior officer in the British army. By the time I knew her she had already transitioned, and was ecstatically happy to have done so. The fact that she would in no way “pass” was unfortunate (she was already fairly bald and looked like Winston Churchill dressed as a woman) but did not affect her joy at having become what she said was her authentic self. She was a fascinating and impressive person, and I am glad I knew her.
4/ Nor do I need any enlightenment on the fact that trans women are routinely and more than frequently subjected to abuse, violence, and worse. I hate and deplore this. I support any reasonable actions which give them more protection, and hope that eventually feeling towards them will change so significantly that this kind of behaviour becomes much rarer, as it has (to some extent) with violent homophobia.
5/ Since I am giving background on my experience, I would also add that I need no enlightenment on the amount of misogyny and violence against women which is so prevalent in all our societies. I have been closely connected for many decades to someone who has been involved in this issue since the establishment of the first ever refuge, worldwide, which was opened in Chiswick London for victims of domestic abuse, or (as they were then called) battered women. And a very close friend of mine, whom I have just seen in the North Country, still works one to one with victims (both female and trans) of extreme male partner violence. She is the one I mentioned ages ago (and someone who I think most of you would think of as a trans ally – i.e. she is not really a gender critical feminist) , who in a former job, worked with a bald, bearded man who dressed like a builder, but had a female name, insisted on being called she/her, and had intact male genitals. I wonder whether some of you are quite aware of how much of the behaviour of this kind of “trans woman” is performative, and possibly (I don’t actually know this in that case) designed to spite the libs.
Part 2:
I still can’t understand why you are all so comfortable with the absolute assumption that women should be expected to give up their safe, private spaces to make male-born persons no matter how benign (and of course one cannot be sure if they are) comfortable, given that males commit most violence and almost all sexual violence, and that therefore many women (a large percentage of whom have suffered some manifestation of this, see e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/30/most-women-in-england-and-wales-have-seen-abusive-male-behaviour-in-the-past-year-poll-finds ) understandably fear being alone with them. If you believe, and I do, that trans people should be safe and have dignity, what makes it so obvious that this should be at the expense of natal women’s sense of safety and security?
And I think it is deeply unfortunate that the expression of these fairly common feelings among women should de facto be interpreted to be hateful and transphobic. This (at least from people like me) is not an attack on trans people, it is a defence of women’s hard won rights, which are necessary to the health (the emotional health, at a minimum) of many of them. And the situation which has developed in the last several years, where any women (and there are many examples) who dared to raise these issues or query the trans activists’ orthodoxy was not only metaphorically tarred and feathered for being transphobic, but in many cases also lost their jobs and livelihoods.
It is only because of the activism of the trans rights movement, following their successful passing into “law” of the mantras that Trans Women are Women, self-ID is sufficient to establish transness, and that sex does not exist or is not binary, and the enthusiastic adoption of all this by progressives and well-meaning lefties, that obviously male men (beards, erections and all) have been emboldened to invade women’s spaces and make themselves a nuisance or worse, with no real fear of being challenged or ejected. This is how the hot issue has developed about how you can tell who is male and who female, and how you would prove it. When the law changes, and makes clear that women-only spaces are for natal females only, I strongly suspect that such incursions will largely stop, and all this talk about “but how can you tell without checking” etc will no longer be relevant.
It should not be women’s responsibility to come up with the answer to how it should work in reality to accommodate trans women in safety. But in practice, my own guess is that trans women who “pass” would continue to use women-only spaces without remark as they have always done, and those who don’t, or anyone else, would use (according to my previous suggestion) gender-neutral spaces. Trans men who pass (like nous’s friend C) would presumably use the stalls in men only spaces, or otherwise the gender-neutral ones. When I first read about bobbyp’s Seattle Sea Tac unisex ones with all closed stalls it seemed reasonable, but then I remembered hearing from friends that, when out clubbing, sometimes to escape the persistent attentions of creepy men they would retreat to the loo, do their makeup, talk to friends etc, and that you cannot do this alone in a stall. But I guess in an airport as opposed to a nightclub that could be OK. There may be other, better solutions. But it is not my job, or that of feminists seeking to protect women, to come up with them.
Regarding wj’s comments about genital surgery, the trans woman I personally knew and was friends with had urgently pursued such surgery, and was ecstatic to have finally had it. Personally, I would take such a wish and its accomplishment as some kind of reassurance that this category of transwomen were serious about their transition in such a way as to indicate a lesser danger to women, but many GC feminists of my acquaintance do not necessarily think so. And, as I have made clear, I think the views of concerned women on this issue should take precedence. In any case, a survey of trans people (male and female) I read a couple of years ago, which I think I may have posted here, found that between 45-55% had no intention whatsoever of having genital surgery. Which explains so much of the trans activists’ rhetoric, to GC feminists: suck my girl dick, to lesbians: if you don’t want to sleep with a woman with a penis you must be transphobic, and on and on. So contemporary trans people are rather different from the trans people I knew decades ago.
And of course, unfortunate though it is, the adoption of the trans activists’ mantras TWAW etc, by well-meaning progressives and lefties (some of which attitude I have explained I once shared because I had and have no prejudice against trans women until I became better educated about all the implications), has given this potent weapon into the hands of the Rs and the RWNJs. And most of them, I’m pretty sure, are transphobic. I’m not surprised to hear that some of you, russell included, are sick to death of this theory. I’m pretty sick about it myself. But I believe it’s true, although we cannot know the extent of the difference it made. The issue speaks to normal people, who have kids on swim teams and using locker rooms, the Rs spent a great deal of money pushing ads about it, and I am told polls suggest that voters cite it as a cause of deep distrust.
Wow, bad punctuation can really mess with meaning. That last para should have contained this version:
(some of which attitude I have explained I once shared, because I had and have no prejudice against trans women, until I became better educated about all the implications)
A couple of things. I was hoping to be brief, I have failed. Apologies.
First, McBride is a remarkable and thoughtful person. Listened to about 15 or 20 minutes of the Ezra interview, there was nothing she said that I could possibly disagree with.
As far as “ranters and persuaders”, I agree that the persuader side of things is needed to build broad support. But if I look at the history of the expansion of rights in this country, I can’t think of an example where anything happened *at all* without the ranters beginning the conversation.
People talk about the remarkable speed with which gay rights gained broad acceptance in this country. Somehow we went from gays being evil twisted weirdos, to them being that nice young man Will on Will and Grace, or those cute kids on Glee. And all in, what, a generation?
The thing is, there would never have been a Will or cute kids on Glee or any of the other mainstreaming of gays into American life without Stonewall. Which was a violent multi-day riot, 56 years ago. Or without Act Up, which was an angry, in-your-face reaction to public indifference to the plague of AIDs, 40+ years ago.
Same story for labor rights, which were mainstreamed and institutionalized generally in the New Deal, but which began in many cases as literal open warfare. Like, bombs and guns open warfare.
Same story for black rights, which received de jure recognition in the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965, but this country literally had to be shamed into those by the horrific violence of the Freedom Rides and Selma and Montgomery.
So maybe we’re at a point where the world is ready to hear the reasonable arguments of a Sarah McBride. But I maintain that there would be no US Representative Sarah McBride without all the folks who raised the issue of transgender rights in the years leading up to her election.
I’ll offer a brief quote from MLK’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail:
Without the ranters making people uncomfortable, there is no conversation for the persuaders to have.
And a brief response to this:
I’m not surprised to hear that some of you, russell included, are sick to death of this theory.
When I say that I’m sick of hearing “It’s the (D)’s own fault they lost because they were pushing this trans stuff down our throats”, it’s not because I do not recognize that (D)’s made themselves unpopular in a lot of circles due to their support of transgender rights.
What I’m sick of is the lack of recognition that the bigotry and fear of quite a lot of people is also involved.
To reach back again to MLK, his work and the work of all of those involved in the great struggle for black civil rights in the mid 20th C were subject to constant criticism. They were pushing too hard, trying to make things happen too fast.
And it’s true, it did make a lot of people very very uncomfortable. Violently so, in many cases.
But the underlying problem was the stubborn, ingrained disrespect and animus of white Americans toward black Americans.
The black civil rights struggle was somewhat successful, but it came at a cost – the (D) party lost the American south, and that is a price we continue to pay.
Should they have not made the effort, in the interest of not alienating folks?
Things never change unless somebody, somewhere, pushes. And generally pushes hard. There is also a need for the persuaders of the world to talk folks down off the ledge, but *none of that happens* until somebody, somewhere, pushes.
I can think of no example in our history as a nation where that has not been so.
I will add that in all of this I am not singling out you, GFTNC, as being among the bigots. I understand the point you are making here, and understand that women have worked damned hard for a long time to not be subject to the domination of men.
I’m just looking for a solution that works for everyone. I’d like the trans people I know to be able to pee without having to consult an app letting them know where they can do so safely.
russell: completely understood. And I had meant to say (in response to Donald originally) that I too think the ranters are necessary and important. I do not see, though, that a particular section of the trans activist movement were ranters bringing the immorality of prejudice to public notice, I think that they were determined to isolate and demonise as transphobic people unwilling just to go along with their most extreme positions. And they were, and have been, very successful in this, although I hope it is starting to change.
What I’m sick of is the lack of recognition that the bigotry and fear of quite a lot of people is also involved.
Bigotry and fear are different things. The former is completely unacceptable and must be fought to the last gasp, the latter needs to be understood and dealt with, not dismissed and demonised.
I’d like the trans people I know to be able to pee without having to consult an app letting them know where they can do so safely.
Agreed.
Bigotry and fear are different things.
yes, although I’d say a lot of bigotry is rooted in fear. but both are equally toxic, and both require the person holding them to gain some self-awareness that they *are* holding them in order to move past them.
of the two, fear is easier to have sympathy for and patience with. but it also motivates a lot of bad behavior, which itself needs to be seen as unacceptable.
Heraclitos, my personal favorite of the pre-Socratics, said “All things come into being by conflict of opposites”. Nobody (or at least most folks) don’t like conflict, and avoid it if they can.
It’s uncomfortable. But it is the engine of change.
also, I feel like I should clarify my point of view on this:
I still can’t understand why you are all so comfortable with the absolute assumption that women should be expected to give up their safe, private spaces to make male-born persons no matter how benign (and of course one cannot be sure if they are) comfortable
I have no absolute assumption that women should be expected to give up their safe, private places. For whatever reason.
I’d like *public accommodations* that are available to non-transgender people to *also* be available to transgender people.
Mostly I want people who live as women to use public women’s bathrooms, and people who live as men to use men’s.
Because what conservatives are trying to do now – only the sex assigned at birth will be recognized, and you will only have access to facilities corresponding to that sex – is actually going to exacerbate the problem (see also transgender men using ladies’ rooms) and get people hurt (see also transgender women using men’s rooms).
I wish guys weren’t such a**holes. I write that in all seriousness, as a guy. I know women can be a**holes, too, but far less often in the form of assaulting strangers who’ve done nothing to deserve it.
I wish guys weren’t such a**holes.
Would solve a lot of problems
Quick related thoughts on the subject of ranters and persuaders…
It’s sad to me that these categories, which should describe rhetorical strategies, quite often end up describing people or institutions. Having only a single mode of engagement makes one’s arguments easier to write off. But knowing which mode is most appropriate in a given situation requires better listening and reasoning skills, and the online environment is hostile to those things by design.
On a related note, I think it is usually a mistake for the ranters (though I prefer to think of them as scrappers) to lean to heavily upon shame as their weapon of choice. In my teaching experience I’ve usually found that shame is more likely to lead to retrenchment than to provoke empathy.
Granted, a lot of time the people being addressed should feel shame for what they are doing, but that shame must arise out of self-reflection for it to prompt change. That’s a really hard lesson to learn, and it requires patience and a measure of humility to make space for it in conversation.
I’d like *public accommodations* that are available to non-transgender people to *also* be available to transgender people.
Mostly I want people who live as women to use public women’s bathrooms, and people who live as men to use men’s.
I see that my use of the word “private” may have been confusing, or indeed incorrect. I meant “restricted to women only”. Women’s taxes pay for “public accommodations” as well, of course. In any case, depending on what you mean by “people who live as women” it looks as if you may indeed want women to have to give up their safe spaces (and as I have made clear “safe” in this sense does not just refer to physical safety) to male persons.
There is no doubt that the conservatives’ motives and formulation are as crude and stupid as possible, with the apparent necessity for birth certificates etc. This was of course to make a point of owning the libs. But in fact, if one eschewed the formulation that without qualification “trans women are women”, and the extraordinary concept that self-ID is sufficient, which allowed the performative flaunting of clearly male people in women’s spaces, none of this would be necessary. As I said, trans people who pass would be able to continue to use the facilities of their gender identification, and those who do not pass or whose appearance is ambiguous, would need gender-neutral spaces. It may well be, as a result of the extreme requirements of the trans activists for doctrinal conformity, that this will no longer work. In which case, as I said before, it is not for women to have to provide the solution – which is what it boils down to.
For whom is it to provide the solution?
I am for reasonably private accomodations in public places that provide for any sex. In most public places the sign on the door is the primary differentiator of places that would accommodate anyone. Larger venues could adapt over time. In the lounge in Toronto for Air Canada they had floor to ceiling walls and doors on the stalls, good wooden ones. I always thought they provided plenty of privacy. The upside of full shared facilities is one would rarely be in it alone.
Women should keep whatever level of safety they have now.
it looks as if you may indeed want women to have to give up their safe spaces (and as I have made clear “safe” in this sense does not just refer to physical safety) to male persons.
Yes, in my very own perfect world, people who were born male but who see themselves as women and present themselves to the world as women would have access to public ladies’ restrooms. Even if they had a penis, as long as they kept that detail to themselves.
“Present themselves to the world as women” is carrying a lot of water here. I mostly mean “look like women” or “can pass as women”. But I’m not sure how hard of a line to draw there because there are biological women who appear masculine (transgender or not), certainly to some eyes if not to all, and I think they should be able to use the ladies’ room also.
And I’m not sure how you enforce any of this without basically relying on what people look like, unless you want to get into some kind of gonad police force guarding public rest rooms.
I understand that the whole “self id” thing opens the door to people who are obviously male declaring to the world that they are actually women and, based on that, trying to use a ladies’ room. And I understand how disturbing that would be for women. I wish those – the to-all-appearances men – wouldn’t do that, because it just makes trouble for everyone. I’m ok with those folks being directed to the men’s. FWIW.
In general I wish that everybody would chill the f**** out and do what makes best sense in any given context. But people – all kinds of people, whether trans, cis, or some other variant – can be assholes, so things don’t always play out that way.
I understand and respect that you have a different position on this. That doesn’t make me angry or upset with you, it does not change my regard or respect for you. You have your reasons for holding the position you hold.
We apparently disagree. It happens.
My own tone in this thread has been somewhat combative, apologies if that is received by anyone as hostility or anger. My wife and I are recovering from what has been a, not life-threatening in any way, but extremely tiring and taxing round of COVID. And, the country I was born and raised in is being driven over a cliff by a cabal of greedy morons who appear to be devoid of even the most rudimentary shred of decency and there doesn’t seem to be anything anyone can do about it.
It’s all kind of exhausting. So I’m generally in a bad mood. But not with anyone here. Not even BigBadBird 🙂
Peace out
I am for reasonably private accomodations in public places that provide for any sex.
Makes sense to me
I understand and respect that you have a different position on this. That doesn’t make me angry or upset with you, it does not change my regard or respect for you. You have your reasons for holding the position you hold.
Understood, russell. And I feel the same. And FWIW, I have never felt any personal anger or hostility from you, and that is reciprocal. I’m so sorry you and your wife have been ill, and are tired, and I’m deeply sorry that your country is being ruined by the bastards in power, and otherwise layered throughout society. How can a poor man stand such times and live?
For whom is it to provide the solution?
Good question. Women can and should play a part, since no (wo)man is an island. But the expectation that women should, realistically, be the only people who make a sacrifice, or even that a sacrifice is necessary, is wrong and unacceptable. Perhaps trans people could come up with some suggestions?
GftNC: I still can’t understand why you are all so comfortable with the absolute assumption that women should be expected to give up their safe, private spaces to make male-born persons no matter how benign (and of course one cannot be sure if they are) comfortable
russell:I have no absolute assumption that women should be expected to give up their safe, private places.
Likewise.
GftNC, perhaps you might rephrase “you all” to “some of you” Just a thought.
In any case, a survey of trans people (male and female) I read a couple of years ago, which I think I may have posted here, found that between 45-55% had no intention whatsoever of having genital surgery.
It seems to me that what better describes these individuals is, in some cases, “cross-dressers”. Or perhaps we need a different term. But labeling them (or allowing them to label themselves) as trans makes it unnecessarily difficult to address the very real issues of those who really are trans — that is, feel that they were born in a body of the wrong sex and want to correct that mistake.
wj, russell has since made clear that in his ideal world women would have to give up what I was calling safe, private spaces, by which he understandably took me to mean private as opposed to public facilities. And I accept that this is his (nuanced) view, and he is entitled to it.
So I’m unclear whether you are agreeing with russell, or with me. But if the latter, I exempt you from my generalisation!
I’m still very tired, so will be retiring from the field of play for the night. Sweet dreams, all.
I’m confused.
My understanding of private is that it refers to things that are not open to the general public. So, members-only situations, private clubs etc.
My understanding of public is anything open to the general public. Which includes bars, restaurants, hotels, etc.
There are legal restrictions in the US (and also in some localities) about what kinds of organizations can be private as I’ve described above. But organizations that set themselves up as private within the bounds of the law *can* discriminate based on gender. So, some golf clubs in the US famously exclude women.
Public accommodations cannot.
When you say “private, safe place” are you talking about a private place in the sense I’ve described here? As opposed to, for example, a rest room in a hotel lobby or airport or restaurant?
I’m just trying to understand what we’re talking about.
As an aside, friends of my wife and I opened a women-only fitness gym a while back. It was really popular, because a lot of women aren’t comfortable working out around men.
Some guy sued them, and won. So they were no longer able to be women-only. He never even joined the gym, he was just making a point.
To me, that was stupid. There are plenty of other gyms the guy could join, and it was a membership-based thing – you couldn’t just walk in off the street, you had to join and pay a monthly fee to be a member.
It was a useful thing, a comfortable and supportive place for women to work out without having dudes judge them or stare at them or hit on them or otherwise be jerks.
Sometimes the law is an ass.
It seems to me that what better describes these individuals is, in some cases, “cross-dressers”. Or perhaps we need a different term. But labeling them (or allowing them to label themselves) as trans makes it unnecessarily difficult to address the very real issues of those who really are trans — that is, feel that they were born in a body of the wrong sex and want to correct that mistake.
Gender affirming surgery (especially bottom surgery) is expensive and has some serious potential risks and side effects. It’s not uncommon for trans-people to do top and gender-affirming cosmetic surgery, but forego bottom surgery for a time, or to decide the risk is too great based on medical history. Many others simply cannot afford the long recovery time and have no support structures to see them through it.
This is one of those cases where I don’t think that the public should be compelling any risky medical action in order for the individual to prove their intent, and a reason why I would like to see less normative public pressure on gender-non-conformance. I don’t want people forced into more drastic a choice than they are ready for just to be afforded a measure of personal dignity.
Let people manage their own dysphoria and make their own medical decisions without compulsion.
Despite being tired, I must answer this since my stupid wording caused such confusion.
When I said “private, safe space” I was talking about the feeling many women have when among only other women, that they can change clothes, or talk about stuff in a way that they would not do if unknown men were present. The example I gave about girls seeking refuge, or “privacy” in nightclub loos when avoiding creepy men conveyed some of this feeling. As did something I read recently by a woman who remembered starting her first period unexpectedly, and being taken into the ladies’ room by her mother, and when her mother explained what had happened other women waiting in line let her and her mother go ahead of them to tidy up. When they came out of the stall, one of the women talked kindly to her about her own first time, and made her feel good about it. Writing in middle age, she said she had never forgotten it. Unfortunately, I am damn sure this would not have happened in this way if there was a man, or an obviously male trans woman in the room.
It is a sense of privacy in the boundary sense, but I can quite see that its use in this context was misleading, and I apologise for it. So, as must surely now be obvious, I think in principle women-only lavatories, changing rooms, hospital wards etc should not include trans women, while bearing in mind the fact that trans women who pass could include themselves unostentatiously without causing any awareness or problem.
We all know and have discussed the various problems trans people can experience if made to use facilities of their biological sex; I hope a solution can be found once it is understood that it is not OK to assume that women should be asked to sacrifice their sense of comfort and security to accommodate the needs of male persons.
GftNC,
This is going to be a bit harsh and I apologize for that in advance. It is clear that this is an issue that is very important to you. However, that makes it even more important to clearly understand the positions of others.
This part that Russell quoted
I still can’t understand why you are all so comfortable with the absolute assumption that women should be expected to give up their safe, private spaces to make male-born persons no matter how benign (and of course one cannot be sure if they are) comfortable
advanced google search tells me that I have not used the collocation of private spaces. Interestingly enough, when I put in ‘women’s spaces’, I get hits in my post
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2021/04/trans-discussion-1.html
Russell has already pointed out that that ain’t him. I don’t know if it is me, because I don’t know how you are defining these spaces. Is it a women’s bathroom at the club? Or at Sea-Tac airport? Or in the Capitol? Or changing rooms at the gym? You run into a problem with definition. But saying that not only me, but everyone on this blog has an “absolute assumption” is getting a bit too far over your skies.
You also bring up your experience with one person who has transitioned. I have known and know several people who present/presented as female. Here in Japan, there are actually some tarento who fall into that category (don’t know them, but know of them) What I don’t know is if they have actually transitioned or not. It’s not something that one asks. At least not me. That you have one person who shared that information is great, but please note this caveat.
At the beginning of that post above, my only front page post on trans issues, I wrote this
I approach this topic hesitantly. I sometimes deal with younger people who come to Japan and I have met a few who are gender-fluid. When my daughter had to return because of Covid, she did her classes for the last term on zoom and I overheard the first class where everyone was introducing themselves and giving their pronouns. Definitely feeling my years. And my life experiences in this realm are miniscule, so I want to be cautious about stating anything.
and in what you quoted, I was pretty careful to use a plural. When confronted with a person who said they knew one person, so they could confidently tell me they ‘knew’ their culture, I generally walk away fast. Unfortunately, that is what you are doing here, but walking away fast is not an option.
Donald dinged me for my absolute statement about knowing McBride, but please note my emphasis here
If you don’t know who McBride is before you click on this link, you should stop talking about trans rights in America.
To me, it is like explaining about civil rights in the US and not knowing Rosa Parks. This isn’t to suggest that Parks and McBride are equivalent (and the role of Parks is often misstated and misunderstood) but saying ‘who?’ means that there are large areas that the person isn’t seeing. I believe that the notion of public and private is different between the US and the UK, so, while you may be absolutely certain you understand the difference in the UK, you may be falling short when this is transferred to the US.
Thinking about McBride and defining the Capitol restrooms as women only spaces, should she have gotten some special card saying she was an “honorary woman?I realize that the reference might be a little too pointed, but if your urge is to tell me that sex differences are not the same as racial differences, I think you have lost the plot.
Finally, you say of nous that “his approach (and maybe even opinion) has shifted slightly and become more nuanced” while you have not shifted at all. Logically, there are three possibilities, the one you mention, one where you have shifted and have come to understand the nuance in nous’ position, or that you have both changed. You may wish to consider the other two possibilities.
I want to emphasize that I don’t think this is like McT’s banning. For anyone who has come since that happened, this is the open letter
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2023/10/open-letter-to-mckinneytexas.html
and you can see where it arose from by going through a few of the previous posts. He was banned not because he snarked or had “a sharp pen”. He was banned because he made a allegation that, if he didn’t know was untrue, he should have realized it.
I get that you think the blog is assembled against you on this issue. That sucks. But I have seen times when that situation arises and that person feels that is the hill they want to die on and so they keep ratcheting up the temperature in what seems like an attempt to get kicked out in order to prove their point. I’ve also seen when the person gets so snarky that people ignore what they say. Both are not really optimal.
It is rather hard for me to know what to make of your comment, lj. It is not that it is harsh, it is that it seems, for example, to ignore many of the comments in which I have explained what I meant when I used the (admittedly misleading) word “private”. Your comment also seems to suppose that just because I said I had had a close friend who was trans, that that was the only trans person I had ever encountered. Nor did I say that my relationship with my friend made me “know” trans culture.
I don’t at all understand your point about McBride. I was the first person who mentioned her interview, and it was a favourable mention. And my knowledge about the trans debate in the US is as extensive as reading American newspapers, and other periodicals/newsletters, can make it. Your points are opaque to me.
Most people on the blog disagree with me on this issue to a greater or lesser extent; I can live with that. Are you implying that they/you can not, and that I should stop explaining my views? You would be amazed to know how often I do not bring the trans issue up out of consideration for the blog sensibilities, even when there are important news stories about it. This despite the fact that it (the trans issue) is a major point of discussion among a considerable number of the people I know. My point about the “absolute assumption” (given that most of the debate here and nationally/internationally is about trans women specifically) was how interesting and unexamined I thought it was that most people here (and elsewhere!) assumed that the answer to the problem of where trans people should use the bathroom was to ask women to give up their female-only spaces. I still think that this at heart shows something about people in general and their prioritisation of other groups’ (particularly male) needs and rights against those of women.
I hardly think I have been “ratcheting up the temperature”, let alone attempting to get kicked out. I thought I was arguing my case, without being personally insulting, and coming back and answering or clarifying questions. Are you suggesting (including with your reference to McKT)that you think I have entered the “possibly deserving of being banned” space? You astound me.
I have been trying to go to bed for a while now. I will do so, and see what occurs in the meantime when I log on tomorrow.
When I said “private, safe space” I was talking about the feeling many women have when among only other women, that they can change clothes, or talk about stuff in a way that they would not do if unknown men were present.
Cool, thank you for explaining.
I recognize the value of that, and truly do recognize that it would be a loss to many women to lose that.
I don’t really have a solution that checks all the boxes, as it were. Wish I did.
In any case, I offer my best wishes for a restful night after a long and somewhat contentious day here online.
We’ll get there, somehow.
wj, who’s inspecting the documentation or the genitals if being trans requires bottom surgery? Kind of takes us right back to the earliest part of the conversation.
“I’ve also seen when the person gets so snarky that people ignore what they say.”
I feel seen.
There is little that I can add to this discussion, except that no one should be surprised if, in a year or so, everyone has to wear either a “pink triangle” or a “blue square” on their clothes, the choice of which being mandated by some fascist bureaucracy.
Dang, that got dark quickly. GFTNC, it looks like Liberal J isn’t having anymore Wrongthink. The men have decided and that is that.
Russell, yes, it’s shitty that a man can use the law to invade a woman’s space AND bankrupt the entrepreneur at the same time.
I read the so-called Open Letter. Several thoughts: 1) it’s not really an open letter if the object is denied the chance to respond openly, (openly, he repeats for emphasis); and 2) those who take the time to consider the subtext–you are a linguist, after all–of your pronunciamento to GFTNC might not be too surprised if others on the receiving end of your animus have reservations as to your objectivity.
You draw a lot of lines for people and particularly women. Ms McBride has been nominally in the public eye for a year or so–but according to you, a women who doesn’t want to watch a trans woman stand and pee next to her has no right to an opinion unless she has met your personal diktat regarding Ms McBride.
This place is not what it claims to be. Sayonara.
Russell, yes, it’s shitty that a man can use the law to invade a woman’s space AND bankrupt the entrepreneur at the same time.
Actually they’re still in business, and in fact have returned to being women-only. I don’t know if our friends still own it but the clubs are still a going concern. The lawsuit I referred to spurred the state legislature to amend the law so that private clubs could be single-sex.
Long live the People’s Republic of MA!
My wife also used to go to another gym – a national chain – that is women-only.
So all is not lost.
The guy that sued them was an attorney, he also sued a bunch of bars in NYC for offering free drinks to women at happy hour.
Some people just like to stir the shit.
a women who doesn’t want to watch a trans woman stand and pee next to her
Not that this is the only issue in play here, but if I’m not mistaken, women’s rest rooms generally have stalls. With doors.
I think it’s just us guys who are expected to line up, stand, and deliver. Somehow we manage to hold our own. 🙂
Perhaps it’s time to move on to another topic? It’s a pretty rich field out there at the moment.
This place is not what it claims to be. Sayonara.
Sorry to disappoint. We do our best.
Gender affirming surgery (especially bottom surgery) is expensive and has some serious potential risks and side effects. It’s not uncommon for trans-people to do top and gender-affirming cosmetic surgery, but forego bottom surgery for a time, or to decide the risk is too great based on medical history. Many others simply cannot afford the long recovery time and have no support structures to see them through it.
I can see that. But someone sporting a full beard while arguing to be a trans woman? (An example from personal experience I think I remember being given here. Apologies if my memory is faulty.) Just not seeing how that is someone who is trans, at least as I understand the term. Possibly a fit for some other non-traditional category. But trans? No.
But someone sporting a full beard while arguing to be a trans woman? (An example from personal experience I think I remember being given here. Apologies if my memory is faulty.) Just not seeing how that is someone who is trans, at least as I understand the term.
I was speaking of my friend who is a trans-man being required to use the women’s room due to misguided legislation. He has, I believe, undergone bottom surgery, but I have not asked and don’t see that it is any of my business to inquire. I do know he’s had top surgery and is on hormone treatment, and that he could not conceive of having reached his current age without those things.
He also has a passport specifying that he is male, but there is no guarantee that the current administration will let him keep that if they have their way.
Sorry to disappoint. We do our best.
Lol.
A few other things going around, but lest anyone be confused about the meaning of an ‘open letter’, it means that anyone can read it, hence open for viewing. It makes no reference to creating a channel for a reply.
Saraba!
Well, lj, I’ve had a night to think about it, and I am still no wiser about why you thought you needed to be “harsh” with me. Or indeed what any of your main complaints were.
There is one thing I wanted to correct, however, in addition to what I said to you last night. Among other accusations, if I understood you correctly you were accusing me of never having changed my opinion on this matter (despite my having said more than once that originally I was OK with the TWAW camp). In fact, I have changed my opinion: as a result of the extremity of the trans activists’ behaviour and demands, I have come to realise that at its extreme end, gender ideology (if that is the correct term) is profoundly misogynist and homophobic. An example of the former which I gave some time ago was that of the trans woman who headed the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, who when she was told that some rape victims were requesting to be counselled, cared for etc by natal women said that they were bigots who needed to be re-educated, and learn to reframe their trauma.
And although it has become almost too common to report, it is still the case that at any large gathering of GC feminists (for conferences, lectures etc), large crowds of trans activists and their allies gather and scream (and display posters) threatening rape, death and general violence to TERFs (trans exclusionary radical feminists, which is what they call us). If you require proof, I can provide it. Surprisingly, or not, I have never heard of GC feminists doing the same in reverse to trans activists. I stand to be corrected on that, as on much else.
However, all this aside, I would be grateful if you would let me know precisely how you think I should communicate differently here. I come from an argumentative and politically engaged family and culture, and I was under the impression that many people here enjoyed my contributions, as I certainly enjoy theirs. I have always tried (and mostly successfully I think) to be polite and not make personal attacks, but argue the issues on their merits. Is this not good enough?
I was speaking of my friend who is a trans-man being required to use the women’s room due to misguided legislation.
Apologies. I should have checked, rather than relying on memory. The situation you described is a whole different deal.
The Rolling Stones have a song for trans activists, You Can’t Always Get What You Want.
Sorry, dealing with something else at the moment, will try and write more in the next few days.
It is time to move on to other matters:
https://interestingengineering.com/health/tomb-fungus-now-cancer-killing-drug
carry on!
I was under the impression that many people here enjoyed my contributions
I do.
Me too. (no pun intended)
Gftnc— I enjoy your contributions too.
Balloon Juice has also been a warzone, more than once, over the transgender issue. The rage and venom from commenters drove off at least one front-pager.
The most astonishing “gender critical” anger seems to come from older women who were part of Second Wave Feminism hack in the 1970s. (Note: I am a member of that demographic, though on the younger side.)
I say it’s astonishing because my idealistic view of feminism is that it supports women generally, which would (I thought) include people who self-identify as women even if they were born into male or intersex bodies. But that is not always the case; Boy Howdy, is that not always the case.
I’m not sure why. Is it that the mistrust of men is deeply ingrained enough that every transgender person is assumed to be a rapist in waiting?
That’s the only “rational” reason I can think of, and I put rational in quotes because it’s simply not true, any more than “every” Muslim is a terrorist or “every” person with a Southern accent is a MAGA dirtbag.
I just don’t understand the extreme rage aimed at MTF transgender persons, and would like to know where it comes from.
Meanwhile, your Director of Homeland Security speaks!.
They’re not just eating the pets anymore, folks. h/t Atrios.
I am at a total loss as to what to make of this. It’s like a nation governed by paranoid acidheads. Very very greedy paranoid acidheads.
Another three and a half years of this to go. Stick a fork in us, ‘cos we are done.
A problem is that more than a few male perverts and predators are using transgenderism as camouflage.
CharlesWT: “More than a few…”
Does that mean that, indeed, all Muslims are terrorists and all people with Southern accents are MAGA dirtbags?
Thank you for the votes of confidence.
CaseyL, I myself feel no rage whatsoever against MTF transgender persons, nor do any GC feminists I know, but if you have followed our debates and I have failed to put this across, there is really nothing more I can say to help you understand anything about the phenomenon from a GC perspective.
russell, OMG – I just read your link about Kristy Noem. My first thought was that it must be from The Onion, until I checked the masthead.
O brave new world that has such people in it!
Bye Bye Birdie?
Bye Bye Birdie?
A problem is that more than a few male perverts and predators are using transgenderism as camouflage.
A list of all the things that more than a few predators are exploiting to facilitate their predation would be long indeed.
We need separate bathrooms for clergy.
We need separate bathrooms for foster parents.
We need separate bathrooms for home schoolers.
We need separate bathrooms for teachers.
Etc..
But none of these other groups have been so successfully isolated, marginalized, and demonized. They are too numerous. They are too familiar. They do not as easily elicit disgust. The opportunity costs for attacking them are too high for political gain.
We need separate bathrooms for teachers.
At schools over here that is the standard.
[Yes, I know what you meant.]
and don’t forget…separate bathrooms for Republicans.
more than a few male perverts and predators
What does this mean? How many is “more than a few”?
17? 41? 129? 2,417?
There are 340 million people in the US. If transgender people are, as claimed, 1% of that, that means there are 3.4 million transgender people here. Best guesstimate of the ratio of FTM vs MTF transgender folks are 2:1, which gives us roughly two-and-a-quarter million MTF transgender people in the US.
How many “more than a few” do we need to raise that number above the level of noise? By which I mean, a number that shows that allowing MTF transgender women access to women-only facilities presents enough of a risk that it needs to not be allowed?
Since this discussion began, I’ve been trying to find information about how common assaults on women by MTF transgender women are. I looked at BigBadBIrds links, which were (1) a prisoner who murdered their male cellmate while in a male prison, then assaulted their female cellmate while in a women’s prison, which tells me it’s good that this person is locked up, and (b) the famous Loudon County VA “transgender” assault on a girl in the girls room, which was reviewed by a grand jury who found that the perpetrators gender identity was irrelevant to the case.
I have found what appears to be pretty good documentation from sources in the EU and UK indicating that assaults by transgender women occur at about the same rate as assaults by cisgender men, which seems like it deserves some consideration. The fact that in at least one of the studies the sample population were all incarcerated prisoners, however, makes me wonder how widely applicable that information is.
I also note that GFTNC’s perspective on this seems different from most folks on this side of the pond, which makes me wonder if there is some difference between the US and the UK regarding the experience of MTF transgender folks.
What stands out in information from the US is that transgender people (whether MTF or FTM) are much more likely to be assaulted than cisgender folks of either sex.
I can readily understand the concern GFTNC raises about the loss of women-only spaces, where for “women only” I mean cisgender women. Some, maybe many, women aren’t bothered by sharing space with MTF transgender women, but I’m sure that some, maybe many, are. And theri concerns deserve a hearing and consideration.
But “more than a few” is almost meaningless as a point of information, and only serves to further muddy the issue.
If you have useful information, please do share. If all you have is vague rumor, please don’t.
As nous mentioned, there are many groups of people who are known to have high rates of predation. Keep the Boy Scout leaders out of the bathrooms, too! I don’t know what the answer is when the fundamental problem is humans. We have met the enemy, and he is us.
Sexual assault in prison is a very complex subject as it takes place within a closed society (with its own norms and protocols – a subject for deep reading) and a population that comes in four times more likely to have been sexually assaulted themselves than the general population. There’s a lot that has to be taken into account before one can responsibly generalize any data from prison populations to general populations.
One of my dissertation advisors did anthro fieldwork in women’s prisons and has written books on the subject of gender in prison. I’ve read some of her work, and even with that reading under my belt I would not begin to claim that I understood the matter well enough to make critical evaluations or sort through the levels of complexity involved.
My appeal to not-authority.
I’m not sure why. Is it that the mistrust of men is deeply ingrained enough that every transgender person is assumed to be a rapist in waiting?
I suspect that you would find that, for a not insignificant portion of those freaking out, that would be more like “…every male is assumed to be a rapist in waiting.”
Certainly not anywhere near to most of then. Probably as small a fraction as the fraction of men who are actual rapists. But I’ve heard (yup, anecdotally) exactly that sentiment expressed enough times that I don’t believe that it’s entirely an anomaly.
I note also that it is possible (c.f. GftNC) to have concerns about the loss of “women only” spaces without taking that view. Just noting that there are enough loud voices who clearly do to color the discussion.
Meanwhile, your Director of Homeland Security speaks!.
It’s been our experience with these people that, overwhelmingly, every accusation is a confession. So what are we to make of this…?
Sexual assault in prison is a very complex subject …
From what little I’ve read on the subject, it doesn’t seem to be. Rape, overwhelmingly, is about power far more than it is about sex.** In prison, it’s a way of establishing dominance. Homosexual rape by individuals who are not, outside that context, homosexuals.
** If you just want sex, hire a prostitute. The penalties for breaking that law are far lower. Or you can go to Nevada, where it’s legal.
Meanwhile the IDF is dropping 500lb bombs on seaside cafes in Gaza:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/30/world/middleeast/gaza-city-cafe-airstrike.html?unlocked_article_code=1.TU8.ywnF.ECkihP61eLon&smid=url-share
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/02/israeli-military-bomb-fragments-gaza-al-baqa-cafe
There’s a history of such atrocities:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/world/middleeast/missile-at-beachside-gaza-cafe-finds-patrons-poised-for-world-cup.html?unlocked_article_code=1.TU8.rK83.9_58npfCQuAy&smid=url-share
It seems that back then they at least bothered to come up with a justification.
The civilians to target kill ratio has gone up so much – in some cases 100+ – that it doesn’t really matter, though:
the IDF allowed up to 15 or 20 civilian deaths for every low-ranking Hamas militant assassinated. That number could increase to up to more than 100 civilians if the IDF were targeting a single senior Hamas official,
https://www.businessinsider.com/israelis-military-idf-civilian-casualties-ratio-hamas-972-report-2024-4
I also note that GFTNC’s perspective on this seems different from most folks on this side of the pond, which makes me wonder if there is some difference between the US and the UK regarding the experience of MTF transgender folks.
I hesitate to speak in any detail on this subject until I hear from lj how what I said justified his comment to me. The only accusations I understood seemed not to apply to me, but there was a lot I did not understand. So this will be a very limited answer. [Note added just before posting: I seem incapable of being concise, and do not currently have the energy to edit. Sorry!]
However, just on this question of russell’s, I have seen no stats, but it is generally said to be the case (among GC feminists, and in other fora) that the UK is the country with (now) the most advanced GC movement. This is why in various parts of the world TAs call us TERF Island. And our experience of MTF transgender folks is of course heavily influenced by the crowds giving speeches, and holding banners, saying things like “Kill a TERF today” or “the only good TERF is a dead TERF”.
*Several cases eventually came to court here where women (academics, NGO workers etc) sued for unfair dismissal and were found to have been discriminated against because of their belief that sex cannot be changed, and this belief has now been designated a protected one. For anybody who wishes to look them up, the first case was brought by Maya Forstater, and another famous one was Kathleen Stock. These cases (and the many that followed and are still following of women who had been “cancelled” in various ways) are held to be the first cracks in the orthodoxy that had taken hold with very little resistance, presumably because a lot of people didn’t really know anything about e.g. TWAW etc. Then it was a hot subject in Scotland because of the SNP’s enthusiastic embrace of trans ideology, and (as I mentioned last year) there were three trans women sexual offenders in Scotland (a country of 5.5 million people) within eighteen months, at least some of whom were almost certainly bogus i.e. trans identity only claimed after rape charges had been brought and the perpetrators found guilty. The Scotland situation is partly thought to have been responsible for the SNP’s’ dramatic loss of power.
There is a sense that the understanding of the issue has also begun to shift in parts of Europe, but I don’t know too many details (except that I think a lot of it is to do with new studies into the effects of puberty blockers etc, so it seems to be mostly on medical grounds relating to children).
Among GC feminists, I am sorry to say, it is believed that the US, Australia and Canada are still largely in the grip of unquestioned gender ideology, and of course the revolting actions of the Trump regime have also cemented resistance to non-conservative aligned gender critical thought.
I can offer no proof for what I have said in any paragraphs except the asterisked one, but this is what I hear in GC circles (which are not my only circles!)
So here is what Dr. Lynn Bennie of the University of Aberdeen has to say about the SNP losses:
https://www.abdn.ac.uk/socsci/blog/uk-general-election-2024-when-voters-fell-out-of-love-with-the-snp/
There was infighting in party leadership over support of progressive policies like gender recognition, but the member who campaigned against the progressive policies framed her opposition around the issue of marriage recognition, so it was not just the T in LGBTQ+ that was at issue.
It wasn’t the SNP that was enthusiastic about progressive issues. The support of those progressive issues was part of the coalition agreement they had with the Greens.
So the gender recognition is “partly thought to have been responsible” for the SNP losses in much the same passive voice way that it has been partly thought responsible for Dem losses in the last election – perhaps by many of the same people who also maintain that we are “largely in the grip of unquestioned gender ideology.”
YMMV.
I should also say that the paragraph after the link in my post is not a summary of what Dr. Bennie writes in her post. You will find no mention at all of gender recognition in that post.
Thanks GFTNC.
With great respect, I think I may stand down from this discussion for now. My own experience with transgender folks is more than zero, but also not a lot. “More than a few”, in CharlesWT’s phrase, is probably accurate.
Most of the transgender folks I know happen to be FTM, which I think has a different set of issues. Not completely different, but different enough that I’m not sure they bear on the issue we’re discussing here.
I don’t really understand why folks born with a certain sex feel like they should really be the opposite sex. And it’s not my place to know, nor do I need to know. I pretty much accept their own account of their experience at face value, because it’s *their* experience.
I do find it regrettable that folks who it seems would in many ways be natural allies – cisgender and transgender women – find themselves at odds with each other. But I can also kind of obviously see that being included in a “the only good X is a dead X” cohort would affect how you feel about a group of people.
I wish I had a simple answer to the specific issue we’ve been discussing here – transgender access to the corresponding cisgender-only facilities – but I’m afraid I don’t.
I’m not sure what I think of the idea of “unquestioned gender ideology” – to me, it’s less a matter of an ideology and more a matter of accepting what folks say about their own experience. Especially, as in this case, where there is a long, if often suppressed, cultural history, in particular in indigenous and traditional cultures.
Then again, nobody is telling me that the only good straight cisgender white man is a dead one. At least, not the transgender community, AFAIK. It could just be different here, or I could just be living in a bubble as regards the issue.
In any case, I completely agree that the demonization of transgender folks (and feminists, and gays, for that matter) by conservatives generally and the Trump regime in particular in this country have made it really, really, really hard to have constructive conversations about any of it.
Sorry this is and has been such a divisive topic here.
russell: believe me, GC feminists do not believe what they believe because trans activists shout threats! But on bowing out – great choice. I would like to do so myself. To quote you: peace out.
So the gender recognition is “partly thought to have been responsible” for the SNP losses in much the same passive voice way that it has been partly thought responsible for Dem losses in the last election – perhaps by many of the same people who also maintain that we are “largely in the grip of unquestioned gender ideology.”
Mmmhmm. On the last two links, for US info, Alec Salmond was the SNP First Minister of Scotland 2007-2014 and Nicola Sturgeon (who was a vociferous supporter of self ID etc) succeeded him and was SNP FM from 2014 to 2023.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/scotland/2025/04/why-the-scottish-trans-movement-lost
https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/07/05/alex-salmond-blames-snps-poor-election-results-on-obsession-with-divisive-self-id/
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-47960446
As nous mentioned, there are many groups of people who are known to have high rates of predation.
Athletic coaches, particularly male coaches of tween and teen young women. I spent five years on the executive committee for the Colorado Division of USA Fencing, the parent body for fencing as an Olympic sport. Fencing’s not a big sport like gymnastics or volleyball and it was still a problem.
Hi, GFTNC and all,
First, I have to apologize, having an night to think about this leads me to this.
The source of my anger at you (GFTNC) was, I think, at the fact that you were drawn in to writing about this by McT. I do disagree with your stances on this, but the anger is that you were used as a stalking horse by someone who has his knickers in a twist that this place exists. Maybe it doesn’t bother other people, but makes me profoundly angry when someone uses false pretenses to get people to fight. I know it can be a prized cultural trait, in Australia, a ‘shit-stirrer’ is a bit of a compliment. And when everyone accepts that, that’s fine. But there are two keys to that, that everyone accepts that, but more importantly, it is transparent that you know who is who. It is interesting that people sneaking around and pushing others into the fight is held up as one of the sins of the Iranian regime (another topic bbb liked to hold forth on) but doing it in the context of this blog is just a way to show that this place “is not what it claims to be”. What’s a dust-up in service to a greater cause?
I started this out by saying no, I did not want to talk about it with BBB, so I hope laying it out here can get you to understand how I might be more than a little put off when you slide in and say the following
hat lj has a tendency (as do others including Trump) to use “gender” interchangeably with “sex”. Gender critical feminists like myself maintain that sex in humans is essentially binary (with a few very rare exceptions), but that gender is an entirely different matter.
I don’t know if you can detect my annoyance with my point that I was just using the language that Teixera used (from a document shared by McT) but things went downhill from there. It wasn’t that you said (and immediately retracted) I was the same as Trump. What I see (after reflection) was that it was becoming evident to me that it was a loser on the internet pretending to be someone else because they couldn’t have a proper conversation with adults and admit they were wrong and that the said loser was pulling your strings. But it was unfair that I thought you should have known that and I apologize.
I can’t say, if you had known, or even suspected that BBB was McT, if you would have said the same things or waded into the discussion at all as I do know that you step back from this. But you didn’t this time and the discussion exists in that context for me. So any attempt by me of trying to explain why I think you are wrong about various points would not be helpful. As much as I have things to say and ideas I’d like to hash out, me wanting to do that in this context would do the opposite, so I hope you will accept that and move on.
Thank you lj.
It is important to say, however, that it is odd for you to think I had been manipulated into talking about the trans issue; I have been talking about it when I want to, here and elsewhere, for years, sometimes when McKT was still around, but many times since then, even though I don’t engage every time it comes up, so it is very strange for you to think someone was pulling my strings. If it had not been the fake BBB, it could easily have been someone else new. As for whether I had known, or even suspected that BBB was McT, you have obviously forgotten that I raised that possibility in a comment several days ago. I said I had wondered about it, but had decided probably not because the style was rather different.
Of course we disagree profoundly on the trans issue, as I think I do with almost everybody here. I disagree with a few of my closest friends about it, too. As I said before, I can live with that. The only reason I said to BBB that you (and Trump! sorry again, but it was an absolute scandal when he said in his EO that there were only two genders!) sometimes use the words interchangeably is because BBB asked you about gender being binary, which is a category confusion that I wanted to point out to him, not you.
I apologise for going on at such length about this. As I say, I can live with us (all) having different and/or opposing views. I believe in exactly what Donald said was one of the main points of this blog, that we can argue and put up opposing arguments, and if only rarely change each other’s minds, nonetheless at least explain why we think what we do and enlarge each other’s views of the world. What I cannot live with is the imputation of bad faith, or malevolence. And when people tell me I believe things I do not believe, or they misrepresent things I have said, or my character, or they purport to refute or deny something I have said when I have evidence otherwise, I am afraid that I cannot resist coming back about it. Perhaps it is a character failing. It would be so much better to sometimes let things go.
Anyway, that’s quite enough. Thank you for your explanation, and I’m sorry to subject you and everybody else to such a screed. Let’s hope this is an end to the subject, at least for a while.
GftNC – I want people here to understand that the issues within the SNP, like the issues within the Democratic party, arise out of disagreements within the membership over how much public support to give to the various groups they represent. Yes, Sturgeon was personally a strong supporter of the gender recognition policy, and yes, that did cause friction within the ranks of their elected members. That’s what happens in pluralistic parties that represent a diverse constituency. It’s also why I have said here repeatedly that solidarity is hard.
I think it is a mistake, though, to equate support for Sturgeon with support for the SNP, and I think it is misleading when pointing to the election to not put it in the context of the embezzlement of SNP funds and the bankrupting of the party. The SNP was in deep financial difficulty and the timing was terrible for an election.
They were also trying to hold together a coalition, and the Greens support was contingent upon the SNP supporting progressive issues or the coalition would collapse.
So I think a fair reading of the situation needs to foreground that the party was beset with many difficulties and that the gender recognition bill was emblematic of a larger ideological split within the party with some members supporting the nationalist side of the party while opposing the progressive side.
And my biggest difficulty with your framing, and the reason why I wanted to put forth a counter-narrative, was your tendency to try to simultaneously complain about how trans rights are a political albatross while also acting as if those who oppose trans activism are a plucky band of underdogs bravely fighting against ideological hegemony.
Those two things are at odds with each other, and a fair representation would acknowledge the tension there.
Ranters move the Overton Window and force issues out to be discussed. Other people join in the discussion. That’s one purpose the ranters serve. (I think I am a ranter).
nous, I seem to be caught in a doom spiral since the other night, and although I try to switch off and not look til the next day, if I see something I need to respond to (for personal values of “need”) I can’t seem to stop myself. So I’m going to post this, then go to bed, and desperately hope I can regain some perspective tomorrow.
The Scottish situation was complicated. As this poll from 2023 with its commentary underneath shows, although in 2023 Nicola Sturgeon was very popular, the politician most closely associated with the gender/self-ID issue, and although the trans issue was far from the most important issue on voters’ minds, “The poll also finds a majority of Scots oppose the Gender Reform Bill” and “Voters think the NHS and the economy are the top issues facing Scotland, and yet they perceive the SNP’s top focuses to be securing independence and gender recognition reform”.
https://pollingreport.uk/articles/sturgeon-still-scotlands-most-popular-politician
(from 2023)
And my biggest difficulty with your framing, and the reason why I wanted to put forth a counter-narrative, was your tendency to try to simultaneously complain about how trans rights are a political albatross while also acting as if those who oppose trans activism are a plucky band of underdogs bravely fighting against ideological hegemony.
It’s the old problem of definition again. I don’t think trans rights are a political albatross, I support them and I think most people probably do. What is an albatross is extreme trans ideology, which flows from TWAW -> MTF trans people are entitled to all women’s rights -> there is no such thing as sex -> even if there is such a thing as sex it is not binary etc etc etc etc. And, whether you believe it or not, the women who oppose trans activism in the UK have had to be more than plucky, they have been threatened, lost jobs, livelihoods, their health and more while fighting debilitating and expensive years-long legal battles. Plucky underdogs doesn’t even do it justice.
Quick, everyone shut up, or pay attention to wonkie, and we can let this lie (at least for a bit.)
SOrry, I need to make one thing clear. You wrote
It is important to say, however, that it is odd for you to think I had been manipulated into talking about the trans issue
I did not say ‘manipulate’, I said you were ‘drawn in’. Manipulate implies that you were convinced to do something you normally wouldn’t, drawn in acknowledges that you have your opinion. So my anger is not with you, but with the cynicism that bbb/McT displayed (and anger at myself for not nipping it in the bud sooner).
Perhaps he shares the same opinions on this issue as you do, I don’t know and I don’t care. Being an honest participant requires that one acknowledges the weaknesses in one’s own position, not pretending that they don’t exist and not trying to organize others to try and shift opinion, or, when unable to do that, tear the place down. I think we all acknowledge that astroturfing and ‘flooding the zone’ are inimical to the place we want this blog to be. So, in a very real sense, my anger is anger at myself, not being more clear about the problem and not structuring my responses to help this place function.
Most of the transgender folks I know happen to be FTM, which I think has a different set of issues
I think a significant part of the difference is this. Women, as I understand it (never having been there) have a certain amount of interaction in public restrooms. Men have essentially zero. If you’re using a stall, nobody has a clue what your plumbing is. And nobody talks, so a high voice (if you’re trans and have one) doesn’t come into it.
In short, unless you make an effort to let other men know, we’ll be clueless.
Sorry for the rather contextless post earlier – it’s just that the situation in Gaza is so unbearable and nobody seems to be doing much about it.
And, whether you believe it or not, the women who oppose trans activism in the UK have had to be more than plucky, they have been threatened, lost jobs, livelihoods, their health and more while fighting debilitating and expensive years-long legal battles.
J. K. Rowling has been viciously attacked for her views on trans issues. But she has FU money and has dared her adversaries to sue her and the authorities to arrest her. She has offered to pay the legal expenses of other women who have run afoul of the trans activists and fellow travelers.
GftNC correct me if I’m wrong, but my impression is that your views on trans issues are similar to Rowling’s.
Sorry for the rather contextless post earlier – it’s just that the situation in Gaza is so unbearable and nobody seems to be doing much about it.
It’s shocking to me that even Benjamin Netanyahu would be overseeing such slaughter. I knew he was bad, but I underestimated him.
Here’s a X thread on Hamas’ role in the Gaza crisis.
“NEW: We’re shedding light on Hamas’s playbook to try to shut down the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.
They hate us because our model is working. We have delivered 56 million meals in just one month, and for the first time ever, aid is going directly to civilians, not terror organizations.”
Gaza Humanitarian Foundation
Somehow I knew Charles would pop up with a link to one of the groups that is murdering Palestinian civilians.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-military-gaza-ghf-aid-un-3c1bef17093a2a3eeda0764c220b857b
The GHF claim is nonsense anyway. The previous model worked, when Israel wasn’t cutting off virtually all aid.
And of course Haaretz reports that IDF soldiers report they were ordered to shoot civilians.
And as Palestinians correctly complain, Western racists simply ignore then when they report that the IDF is shooting at them when they come for food.
American ( and British) support for this, which is out in the open, will be sen as one of the most shameful episodes in our history. Bipartisanship at its most morally depraved.
Here is what Palestinian witnesses say is happening.
https://www.972mag.com/hunger-games-israel-gaza-food-aid/
Sorry for the rather contextless post earlier – it’s just that the situation in Gaza is so unbearable and nobody seems to be doing much about it.
It’s shocking to me that even Benjamin Netanyahu would be overseeing such slaughter. I knew he was bad, but I underestimated him.
No need to apologise, novakant, it is completely unbearable. And hsh, I agree. I spend whole news reports just saying “Oh God, oh God, oh God”.
Charles, I don’t want to ignore your question, but the answer is somewhat complicated, and frankly I don’t want to get back into the trans issue at the moment. And I’m sure everybody else will be glad to hear that as well!