I've been pondering the origins of 'transgenderism' as a socially / politically influential lobby and that was a very useful essay. In a couple of paragraphs you've managed to focus my thinking.
It's the 'marketisation' of rebellion, the 'profitisation' of progress, the capitalisation of change. Of course it's inevitable, companies and market sectors spend significant resource looking for the next potential money maker and then marketing and exploiting it. But why should the 'liberals' / 'left' fall so heavily for it when it's so obvious that it's capitalism and 'the patriarchy' writ large? The fact that it's so destructive (both individually and socially) is a feature not a bug for the purveyors - every rebuild / repair / revision is a new opportunity.
So many of us have been ranting for years about how regressive this supposedly progressive movement is, you've helped me think more about why.
Brilliant piece. I am a boomer on the younger side, but all the points made connect to us lefties and liberals pre-GenX. The entire last paragraph is SUCH a critical message in this moment. Maybe someone who tweets could put this out there with the article? If you remove the (fantastic) final sentence, it's under 280 and still makes the point.
"Technology changes constantly. It takes careful thought to evaluate what’s progress and what’s degradation. What’s advancing the betterment of humankind and what’s making someone a quick buck. To get to compassionate solutions to complex problems, we need to be able to talk about things, openly and honestly. We can no longer treat our political parties as vending machines designed to dispense our opinions for us."
I believe the answer to the question about what appears to be liberal hypocrisy (you phrased it as "what is it") is simpler than many would like to believe.
It's a difference between two basic personality dispositions:
1. Those more inclined to feel personally like victims, and who want personally to be taken care of (by mom, by the state, by the medical industry), and who therefore extend this as a "moral duty" on others to "take care of other people."
2. Those more inclined to choose being responsible primarily for one's self, and who see practical help to others in the form of helping them become self-sufficient. This includes being willing to walk away and do nothing for people who refused to help themselves and who still demand to be "cared for."
"It started because we care about the gays, and trans seemed gay. Because the average normie doesn’t really understand the LGB, much less the T. Because the first transsexuals we knew were gay men and drag queens. Because we think a femme man is a femme man. Because trans people said they were adjacent to gays, even if many of them don’t seem to be."
Thank you! As far as I am concerned, the new gender-identity theory doesn't look anything like the gay rights movement of which I was a part. We tried to knock down the walls of gender stereotyping, not add another row of bricks. We understood you could be butch or femme and still be either a man or a woman--all combinations worked. Now, you dare not be a boy who likes pink or a girl who plays football without everyone asking your pronouns or offering hormones.
I sometimes think all this focus on identity is really just a way to escape from the reality that what we do is usually more important than what we are.
Those of us who used to be married to men who disappeared down the cross-dressing rabbit hole understand how sexist and demeaning behavior towards the wife is validated by the therapy industry, in their "affirmation corporation." Think how odd it was for me to have my attorney lecturing me, that I must wear some make-up to the court date with Neddy, my ex who started identifying as me, the mother of our 2 sons! For a time, doctors and therapists urged, cajoled and insisted that I must get on anti-depressants, as my PTSD symptoms would be "less intense." They weren't, and I found I could not remember my Kindergarten students' names. I stopped taking the pills and scheduled exercise and stretching. Also, Shannon, you are remarkably modest, to refrain from listing your memoir, 18 Months here! I link my commentary on your Megan Murphy interview below:
Exactly what is progress, anyway? Surely it is a personal perception. If it's anything new and shocking that is alluing simply on that basis, then it seems a recipe for disaster. No thought, common sense, analysis or concern for predictable consequences, too often more ignored than unintended. This appears to be the case now as the attractions become more and more bizarre, and harmful. There always money to be made from any fad, both of which are enough to upend old positions. We are becoming unhinged and untethered. Is that progress?
"When my transgender ex-husband Jamie and I were still married, we were friends with an unshaven, soy-eating vegan couple who decried factory farming, the institution of marriage and other bastions of “capitalist patriarchy.” A frugal couple, they grew their own food and made their own lotion, disparagingly referring to Whole Foods as “Whole Paycheck” and Starbucks as “Sixbucks.” Willow eschewed makeup and spun her own wool for knitting."
Some confusion here: Vegans don't decry "factory farming;" they decry *all* exploitation of animals. And vegans most definitely do not use wool, home-spun or otherwise. Veganism isn't a diet; it's the avoidance of all animal products to the extent possible and practicable, including wool.
Notwithstanding that the people referred to here are NOT vegan as shown by their use of wool (and who knows what other animal products?)— "unshaven, soy-eating"? This is clearly attempting to draw on and reinforce negative stereotypes regarding vegans and veganism. So misdirected, unnecessary and backward considering all we know in 2023 about the benefits of veganism for human health and the environment and the fact that veganism is a moral imperative for anyone who recognises animals as sentient beings and not just things or replaceable resources.
Aside from the unfortunate opening, I appreciated this insightful essay exposing the contradictions that are typically ignored by many of those who regard themselves as progressive. And I agree wholeheartedly with the conclusion:
"Technology changes constantly. It takes careful thought to evaluate what’s progress and what’s degradation. What’s advancing the betterment of humankind and what’s making someone a quick buck. To get to compassionate solutions to complex problems, we need to be able to talk about things, openly and honestly. We can no longer treat our political parties as vending machines designed to dispense our opinions for us."
Indeed, it's been disappointing and quite shocking for me to see the extent to which lazy, conformist, uncritical, cowardly and tribalist thinking (non-thinking) has dominated the so-called "progressive" and "left-wing" cohort, who seem to have fallen into the trap of confusing the new with the progressive, as starkly shown in the acceptance and quasi-religious/cultish celebration of gender ideology, a most regressive and damaging social trend.
Let me advance a rather oddball theory. If you are familiar with the curve of population against time in a fixed-resource culture, say, bacterial colonies in a petri dish, you will be familiar with the exponential growth, slowing down as resources dwindle and waste-products accumulate, eventually leading to a slight reduction in population then a catastrophic crash. Well, what would that look like if we consider ourselves in the situation of those bacteria? We know that over-crowding and stress cause a rise in non-functional behaviours (self-injury, homosexuality - no offense to gay people who were always that way!, paraphilias, aggressive behaviours etc) in both animal populations (eg pigs in a factory farm) or humans in an artificial environment such as a crowded prison.
Seen in that light, perhaps some of the odd behaviours we see, especially those that prevent reproduction - asexuality, transgenderism, homosexuality, bizarre genders - might fit in with where we are on that curve. Likewise, we delay having children and have fewer of them as economic conditions get harsher. We may be at the stage of population contraction and perhaps these are parts of the mechanism. Maybe all we can do is to sit back and marvel as we watch nature in action? There is a temporary fix that briefly makes us appear to be further back on the curve, and that's to stimulate population growth via immigration, and although that works in the short term, it makes things worse in the long run. Exciting times!
There should be a warning attached to Shannon’s memoir: DO NOT START READING AT BEDTIME! I made the mistake of doing so and couldn’t put it down. Can’t remember the last time I felt compelled to read throughout the night. Schedule it for a leisurely Saturday or Sunday afternoon, you’ll thank me later. (But do read it!)
This was really interesting. It's a question I've thought about a little, but beyond the growing societal need to Support The Current Thing or face cancellation, hadn't made sense of it yet. Identifying as ill, rather than just getting illnesses, bridges a gap in conceptual understanding. After that change is made, then even questioning the thing that the ill-identifiers claim helps them, is easily seen as hate speech.
Of course then we have to go back and figure out why people started identifying as ill, valorizing mental illness, in droves. Social media spreads it, but why did it take root in the 1st place? My guess is: As wealth grew - survival and even basic comfort became no longer a pressing daily concern, so capacity to have compassion for 'the marginalized' grew, as we no longer needed to be preoccupied with our next meal. Over time, it was a simple incentive game for more and more people to figure out a way to identify as 'marginalized,' and get special treatment.
I'm sure even if correct, this is only part of the story, but it's a start - at least for thought.
Excellent! It's incredibly difficult to have these conversations with people today. As someone who identifies as leftist I've seen so many people drift from their principles, independent thinking and common sense. Most people I know who opposed the heavy handed mandates weren't right wing. They were Anarchists. This is the difficult conflict within the left spectrum. Whether it's Ukraine, Covid or transgender rights and policies as current topics of conversation there is no room for nuanced discourse. As someone who's grown up with trans and non-binary friends my whole life I am always going to respect people's gender identities. I am concerned about how current changes in policies and laws affect women's rights and privacy. If you even question the speed at which things are changing you're a TERF or transphobic. Which myself and other's, even older fully transitioned friends have concerns about. Again there's no room for rational discussions about this issue. If you question the mandates you're branded right-wing or anti-vaxx. Which again, many of my friends who question this are not. I worked in mental health and yes there is definitely over prescribing and many incorrect diagnoses. But again, sigh, you can't discuss this with many people. I won't get into Ukraine except again the left and so-called progressives have completely flipped on anti neoconservative foreign policy. I don't recognize the left anymore. We're living in strange times indeed. Appreciate you're content as always.
One of these things is not like the other, COVID, Ukraine, trans
That’s a trick statement, none of these are alike. COVID is a virus and politicizing vaccines is ignorant. Ukraine is being invaded by Russia which has declared intentions of retaking what thr USSR lost.
trans is far worse that than just medicalizing mental health issues. It’s practically a new religion with weird spiritual beliefs in addition to genuinely evil sexual perversion
In closing, I am triple boosted and will continue to get vaxxed. I favor stomping Russia into a mud hole and walking it dry and I oppose any and all of the weird medical experiments and surgical procedures associated with trans. Trans is a problem between the ears not between the legs
That schizoid relationship with medicine is typical of esotericism. Liberal religion has dispensed with all the hard Christianity, leaving only gnosis. Medicine offers both peril to the soul and a promise of salvation. Squishy, liberal belief allows both to exist. Individual dissonance resolves in whichever direction has the most depth of personal conviction.
The two people least likely to fall for woo are the hard believer in a religious orthodoxy and the hard atheist. "Neither hot nor cold, I spit you out of my mouth."
"Now liberals, once worried about government intrusion into our bodies and bedrooms, lead the support for Covid vaccines and mandates. Is that because mRNA feels like a progressive technology? Is it a commitment to class consciousness over individualism? Is it because we can no longer tease out when and why we support medical advancements? It’s no longer clear."
It's a similar phenomena to regulatory capture, only its social media driven, possibly because of regulatory capture promoting massive psyops via social media. "Full spectrum dominance" only in the opinion making realm. Asking that question relative to the trans, body positivity, and pro pharma phenomenas is revelatory of a mechanism or strategy that keeps being played on us all, and appears to be a crass attempt at eugenics in both Covid itself and the mrna vaccines. Although each one of the four has population control effects. Each was marketed to rebellious people as the next problem to be confronted and whoa/hey here we are. I'm the dinosaur Gen xer who doubled down on autarky seeing how unmoored everything has become. I remember a lot of anti breeder sentiment in the late 90s and this may be the group from my generation in charge now.
I'm a little late to this piece and haven't read the comments yet, but wanted to let you know that One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest criticized electroshock treatment (ECT), not lobotomy.
Thanks. There's much food for thought here.
I've been pondering the origins of 'transgenderism' as a socially / politically influential lobby and that was a very useful essay. In a couple of paragraphs you've managed to focus my thinking.
It's the 'marketisation' of rebellion, the 'profitisation' of progress, the capitalisation of change. Of course it's inevitable, companies and market sectors spend significant resource looking for the next potential money maker and then marketing and exploiting it. But why should the 'liberals' / 'left' fall so heavily for it when it's so obvious that it's capitalism and 'the patriarchy' writ large? The fact that it's so destructive (both individually and socially) is a feature not a bug for the purveyors - every rebuild / repair / revision is a new opportunity.
So many of us have been ranting for years about how regressive this supposedly progressive movement is, you've helped me think more about why.
Brilliant piece. I am a boomer on the younger side, but all the points made connect to us lefties and liberals pre-GenX. The entire last paragraph is SUCH a critical message in this moment. Maybe someone who tweets could put this out there with the article? If you remove the (fantastic) final sentence, it's under 280 and still makes the point.
"Technology changes constantly. It takes careful thought to evaluate what’s progress and what’s degradation. What’s advancing the betterment of humankind and what’s making someone a quick buck. To get to compassionate solutions to complex problems, we need to be able to talk about things, openly and honestly. We can no longer treat our political parties as vending machines designed to dispense our opinions for us."
Wonderful essay.
I believe the answer to the question about what appears to be liberal hypocrisy (you phrased it as "what is it") is simpler than many would like to believe.
It's a difference between two basic personality dispositions:
1. Those more inclined to feel personally like victims, and who want personally to be taken care of (by mom, by the state, by the medical industry), and who therefore extend this as a "moral duty" on others to "take care of other people."
2. Those more inclined to choose being responsible primarily for one's self, and who see practical help to others in the form of helping them become self-sufficient. This includes being willing to walk away and do nothing for people who refused to help themselves and who still demand to be "cared for."
"It started because we care about the gays, and trans seemed gay. Because the average normie doesn’t really understand the LGB, much less the T. Because the first transsexuals we knew were gay men and drag queens. Because we think a femme man is a femme man. Because trans people said they were adjacent to gays, even if many of them don’t seem to be."
Thank you! As far as I am concerned, the new gender-identity theory doesn't look anything like the gay rights movement of which I was a part. We tried to knock down the walls of gender stereotyping, not add another row of bricks. We understood you could be butch or femme and still be either a man or a woman--all combinations worked. Now, you dare not be a boy who likes pink or a girl who plays football without everyone asking your pronouns or offering hormones.
I sometimes think all this focus on identity is really just a way to escape from the reality that what we do is usually more important than what we are.
Those of us who used to be married to men who disappeared down the cross-dressing rabbit hole understand how sexist and demeaning behavior towards the wife is validated by the therapy industry, in their "affirmation corporation." Think how odd it was for me to have my attorney lecturing me, that I must wear some make-up to the court date with Neddy, my ex who started identifying as me, the mother of our 2 sons! For a time, doctors and therapists urged, cajoled and insisted that I must get on anti-depressants, as my PTSD symptoms would be "less intense." They weren't, and I found I could not remember my Kindergarten students' names. I stopped taking the pills and scheduled exercise and stretching. Also, Shannon, you are remarkably modest, to refrain from listing your memoir, 18 Months here! I link my commentary on your Megan Murphy interview below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOqCH3PeZTs&t=408s
Exactly what is progress, anyway? Surely it is a personal perception. If it's anything new and shocking that is alluing simply on that basis, then it seems a recipe for disaster. No thought, common sense, analysis or concern for predictable consequences, too often more ignored than unintended. This appears to be the case now as the attractions become more and more bizarre, and harmful. There always money to be made from any fad, both of which are enough to upend old positions. We are becoming unhinged and untethered. Is that progress?
"When my transgender ex-husband Jamie and I were still married, we were friends with an unshaven, soy-eating vegan couple who decried factory farming, the institution of marriage and other bastions of “capitalist patriarchy.” A frugal couple, they grew their own food and made their own lotion, disparagingly referring to Whole Foods as “Whole Paycheck” and Starbucks as “Sixbucks.” Willow eschewed makeup and spun her own wool for knitting."
Some confusion here: Vegans don't decry "factory farming;" they decry *all* exploitation of animals. And vegans most definitely do not use wool, home-spun or otherwise. Veganism isn't a diet; it's the avoidance of all animal products to the extent possible and practicable, including wool.
Notwithstanding that the people referred to here are NOT vegan as shown by their use of wool (and who knows what other animal products?)— "unshaven, soy-eating"? This is clearly attempting to draw on and reinforce negative stereotypes regarding vegans and veganism. So misdirected, unnecessary and backward considering all we know in 2023 about the benefits of veganism for human health and the environment and the fact that veganism is a moral imperative for anyone who recognises animals as sentient beings and not just things or replaceable resources.
Aside from the unfortunate opening, I appreciated this insightful essay exposing the contradictions that are typically ignored by many of those who regard themselves as progressive. And I agree wholeheartedly with the conclusion:
"Technology changes constantly. It takes careful thought to evaluate what’s progress and what’s degradation. What’s advancing the betterment of humankind and what’s making someone a quick buck. To get to compassionate solutions to complex problems, we need to be able to talk about things, openly and honestly. We can no longer treat our political parties as vending machines designed to dispense our opinions for us."
Indeed, it's been disappointing and quite shocking for me to see the extent to which lazy, conformist, uncritical, cowardly and tribalist thinking (non-thinking) has dominated the so-called "progressive" and "left-wing" cohort, who seem to have fallen into the trap of confusing the new with the progressive, as starkly shown in the acceptance and quasi-religious/cultish celebration of gender ideology, a most regressive and damaging social trend.
your final paragraph is inspirational
Let me advance a rather oddball theory. If you are familiar with the curve of population against time in a fixed-resource culture, say, bacterial colonies in a petri dish, you will be familiar with the exponential growth, slowing down as resources dwindle and waste-products accumulate, eventually leading to a slight reduction in population then a catastrophic crash. Well, what would that look like if we consider ourselves in the situation of those bacteria? We know that over-crowding and stress cause a rise in non-functional behaviours (self-injury, homosexuality - no offense to gay people who were always that way!, paraphilias, aggressive behaviours etc) in both animal populations (eg pigs in a factory farm) or humans in an artificial environment such as a crowded prison.
Seen in that light, perhaps some of the odd behaviours we see, especially those that prevent reproduction - asexuality, transgenderism, homosexuality, bizarre genders - might fit in with where we are on that curve. Likewise, we delay having children and have fewer of them as economic conditions get harsher. We may be at the stage of population contraction and perhaps these are parts of the mechanism. Maybe all we can do is to sit back and marvel as we watch nature in action? There is a temporary fix that briefly makes us appear to be further back on the curve, and that's to stimulate population growth via immigration, and although that works in the short term, it makes things worse in the long run. Exciting times!
There should be a warning attached to Shannon’s memoir: DO NOT START READING AT BEDTIME! I made the mistake of doing so and couldn’t put it down. Can’t remember the last time I felt compelled to read throughout the night. Schedule it for a leisurely Saturday or Sunday afternoon, you’ll thank me later. (But do read it!)
This was really interesting. It's a question I've thought about a little, but beyond the growing societal need to Support The Current Thing or face cancellation, hadn't made sense of it yet. Identifying as ill, rather than just getting illnesses, bridges a gap in conceptual understanding. After that change is made, then even questioning the thing that the ill-identifiers claim helps them, is easily seen as hate speech.
Of course then we have to go back and figure out why people started identifying as ill, valorizing mental illness, in droves. Social media spreads it, but why did it take root in the 1st place? My guess is: As wealth grew - survival and even basic comfort became no longer a pressing daily concern, so capacity to have compassion for 'the marginalized' grew, as we no longer needed to be preoccupied with our next meal. Over time, it was a simple incentive game for more and more people to figure out a way to identify as 'marginalized,' and get special treatment.
I'm sure even if correct, this is only part of the story, but it's a start - at least for thought.
Excellent! It's incredibly difficult to have these conversations with people today. As someone who identifies as leftist I've seen so many people drift from their principles, independent thinking and common sense. Most people I know who opposed the heavy handed mandates weren't right wing. They were Anarchists. This is the difficult conflict within the left spectrum. Whether it's Ukraine, Covid or transgender rights and policies as current topics of conversation there is no room for nuanced discourse. As someone who's grown up with trans and non-binary friends my whole life I am always going to respect people's gender identities. I am concerned about how current changes in policies and laws affect women's rights and privacy. If you even question the speed at which things are changing you're a TERF or transphobic. Which myself and other's, even older fully transitioned friends have concerns about. Again there's no room for rational discussions about this issue. If you question the mandates you're branded right-wing or anti-vaxx. Which again, many of my friends who question this are not. I worked in mental health and yes there is definitely over prescribing and many incorrect diagnoses. But again, sigh, you can't discuss this with many people. I won't get into Ukraine except again the left and so-called progressives have completely flipped on anti neoconservative foreign policy. I don't recognize the left anymore. We're living in strange times indeed. Appreciate you're content as always.
One of these things is not like the other, COVID, Ukraine, trans
That’s a trick statement, none of these are alike. COVID is a virus and politicizing vaccines is ignorant. Ukraine is being invaded by Russia which has declared intentions of retaking what thr USSR lost.
trans is far worse that than just medicalizing mental health issues. It’s practically a new religion with weird spiritual beliefs in addition to genuinely evil sexual perversion
In closing, I am triple boosted and will continue to get vaxxed. I favor stomping Russia into a mud hole and walking it dry and I oppose any and all of the weird medical experiments and surgical procedures associated with trans. Trans is a problem between the ears not between the legs
That schizoid relationship with medicine is typical of esotericism. Liberal religion has dispensed with all the hard Christianity, leaving only gnosis. Medicine offers both peril to the soul and a promise of salvation. Squishy, liberal belief allows both to exist. Individual dissonance resolves in whichever direction has the most depth of personal conviction.
The two people least likely to fall for woo are the hard believer in a religious orthodoxy and the hard atheist. "Neither hot nor cold, I spit you out of my mouth."
"Now liberals, once worried about government intrusion into our bodies and bedrooms, lead the support for Covid vaccines and mandates. Is that because mRNA feels like a progressive technology? Is it a commitment to class consciousness over individualism? Is it because we can no longer tease out when and why we support medical advancements? It’s no longer clear."
It's a similar phenomena to regulatory capture, only its social media driven, possibly because of regulatory capture promoting massive psyops via social media. "Full spectrum dominance" only in the opinion making realm. Asking that question relative to the trans, body positivity, and pro pharma phenomenas is revelatory of a mechanism or strategy that keeps being played on us all, and appears to be a crass attempt at eugenics in both Covid itself and the mrna vaccines. Although each one of the four has population control effects. Each was marketed to rebellious people as the next problem to be confronted and whoa/hey here we are. I'm the dinosaur Gen xer who doubled down on autarky seeing how unmoored everything has become. I remember a lot of anti breeder sentiment in the late 90s and this may be the group from my generation in charge now.
I'm a little late to this piece and haven't read the comments yet, but wanted to let you know that One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest criticized electroshock treatment (ECT), not lobotomy.