I fear that when I see these people immediately run to their battle stations and tweet authoritatively that there is nothing to see here and no reason to have any concern over a massive increase in the number of natal females seeking medical transition I sometimes am tempted by evil to wish that it happens in their family so they might feel a little less certain. It is easy to paint parents like me as bigoted or just clueless when you don't know us and haven't walked in our shoes, but when your depressed and anxious and eating disordered self-harming child bathes in Tumblr posts about being trans and then finds the answer to why they hate their body and you want to take it slow because there are a lot of variables at play and you are arrogant enough to think you know some things about your own child the skepticism comes a bit more naturally. And btw there is no disgust with regard to your own beloved child -- but there is sadness about a bunch of really heavy duty medical interventions (daily injections for life and a double mastectomy are not a walk in the park nor is reducing your life expectancy and losing fertility before you have even really matured enough to know why you have fertility) and that sadness comes because we love our children and we think they are worthy of more respect and investigation than just taking all of their claims at face value and then putting them under the knife in response. But I am not a hateful person and so in the end I retract my wish that David Roberts see his child in this situation because it makes life so much harder for these kids and we have no idea if it will benefit them in the long run or not. I am also really freaked out that no one on the left ever seems to question whether being trans means that you need medical intervention. If self-id is what matters why do we insist on trying to remake the body in seemingly all cases?
wishing you the best in what is undoubtedly a difficult situation. i'm not a parent yet and no matter how my kid(s) turn out I will love them, but i pray that they don't turn out trans
Isn't it kinda like hoping - despite your very best efforts - that your kids don't turn out to be drug addicts and then die of a fentanyl OD (intentionally consumed or not)?
What do parents do to avoid/interdict such a path? Should it be any different for parents of kids zeroing in on trans nonsense while being immature?
I do not think this is hard. But some folks seem to lack the courage of their convictions. It is your child, why would you not use your common sense?
i'm quite a few years away from having kids, but at the first instance of my kid expressing a desire to be trans (the earlier the worse), here's my order prioritization:
1) study the laws in the state i live re child transition, procedures, timeline, parental rights, etc (this is assuming under 18 transition has not been made federally illegal by the time i'm a parent, non zero chance this happens)
2) support my child through therapy (find a therapist who isn't a radical gender-ist), other forms of support to isolate the cause
3) study up on my child's school curriculum and culture - are there gender ideologists among the staff? is my child a part of the GAS at their school?
4) either shield or steer my child away from thinking they're trans or move to a state that is more pro-parental rights or has banned under 18 transition
5) my child goes through a moody puberty like any other child and then goes on to live a normal life. profit!
I belong to a support group where pretty much everyone in the group does these steps. Some have success, others don't. I've had limited success in that my daughter doesn't seem to be that driven to medically transition, but she still identifies as trans.
Yup. Ok, well easier said then done, especially once they turn 18, which my kid is doing in about 5 weeks. I don't think she's going to physically transition any time soon fortunately, but she still identifies as trans.
Well, good luck to you. Or more pressingly, your daughter. I mean that in all sincerity.
I know, having become quite well-read on the topic, that addiction in teenagers and older, is a subtle down slope that may not be obvious. Lots of enablers out there.
I cannot imagine, having myself been the parent of 3 kids who went through teenage years w/o getting caught in the oxy or other vice, the agony of dealing with a kid addicted.
But my comment was intended for those for whom the slope has become known. Stand in the way. Be that parent. I realize that at 18, in our warped unscientific country, kids gonna do what they want. But, for me, I'd still stand in the way.
Also, I'm sure that for all the parents whose kids do become addicted to drugs, it had simply never occurred to them to stand between their kid and the cliff.
Thank you. This seems so obvious to me, as a parent in a similar situation, but according to my ex-comrades on the left, we're nothing but bigots, analogous to the parents who disowned their gay kids in the 80s and 90s. They've completely lost their ability to think in any sort of nuanced, adult way on any issue that can possibly be thought of as being under the social justice umbrella.
2/ Walp, here's one anecdotal in reply to yrs...I am progressive and have absolutely NOT found any such unanimity of pov by either liberal or left wing friends and acquaintances. i.e. - no "ex-comrades."
Please see my response to Tracy above - if for one reason or another your friends/acquaintances are predominantly 'woke' liberals (who define their left cred's on the basis of race or gender issues), or cultural - vs economic (i.e., Sanders-type) - progressives, your experience may be different than mine.
"no one on the left ever seems to question whether being trans means that you need medical intervention."
"No one on the left ever seems to question"? I don't think that's true of liberals or progressives (a range of left-of-liberal leftists):
1/ Feminists labeled "TERFs" are left wing.
2/ This British socialist newspaper article complains that, in England and globally, "some self-described feminists and even sections of the left....Sections of trade union leaders, Labour Party activists and some left organizations have raised objections to the right to self-identification and more generally to the fight for trans liberation."
3/ The leftist Glen Greenwald has written critically of trans medicalization in connection with the spike in female teen trans identification.
4/ The liberal NYT trans medicine article in question cited numerous individuals, who may be presumed to be liberal - though not necessarily left wing - who questioned medicalization.
So - from the above - liberal and left wing opinion on trans medicalization appear unsettled and divided on this issue. Likely on the left there's an underlying "political" vs. "cultural" left division - with some overlap - where more study would point up these divisions.
My sense is that all of the mainstream left press assumes that in the long term trans people will all want/need medical interventions of some sort. My impression is that GCF just reject the whole concept of being trans and thus would not support a social acceptance of trans people in their chosen gender with or without transition services, and that others are calling for more care in determining when to offer medical services, but I am wondering who is calling for a paradigm shift where we both allow people to self-identify via pronouns and names and changing gender markers on legal documents but don't routinely offer medical interventions to change appearance and voice to match the appearance of the norm of the gender that has been selected. If the trans population continues to grow, then there is a question as to how to manage dysphoria and provide a path to social transition without all trans people needing to be on hormones forever. I am wondering if trans people will begin to question whether medicalization is necessary to live their best lives.
"my sense is that all of the mainstream left press assumes that in the long term trans people will all want/need medical interventions of some sort."
1/ ok - so i see, as i suspect might be the case, you're calling the mainstream press "left" vs. liberal as I would - for the purposes of this discussion, we don't have to go into that question.
2/ but that's just the "assum[ption]" that i do NOT find in the "mainstream...press; i AM seeing questioning - a view i've given some evidence to support.
after all, whether you call it liberal or "leftist," in pov, the nyt is "mainstream...press"...
I did not read that article as questioning the underlying idea that medicalization was ultimately necessary as part of being a happy trans person -- I read it as questioning how much time should elapse before intervening with young people to ensure that their identity was stable.
1/ "underlying idea that medicalization was ultimately necessary as part of being a happy trans person."
I see yr point - w/its focus on trans identifying young people, the piece does not focus on the broader q. of whether medicalization is ultimately desirable or psychologically beneficial for all trans people.
2/ As to the question of whether young trans identifying people should "ultimately" medically transition - well the article does not directly tackle that question...but, tactically speaking, it does raise a lot of questions.
the gist seems to be putting on the brakes and shifting opinion - w/the unstated but clearly suggested idea that either psychological illness or social factors can make a child or teenager want medicalization that is ultimately NOT right for them:
"the draft said...they should undergo a comprehensive diagnostic assessment, for the purpose of understanding the psychological and social context of their gender identity and how it might intersect with other mental-health conditions."
The somewhat evasive wpath language is "intersect" - when 'cause' or 'contribute to' trans identification actually fits better in relation to the 'wait and see' protocol discussed elsewhere in the article.
So...I do see how you could read the article as you do...even though the trans advocates clearly did not: those cited were outraged by what they characterized as 'denying crucial care on the grounds that a trans person might grow out of it or regret it later.'
It's starting to become obvious that the Trans issue has moved out of the realm of the political, is no longer about kids, sex, gender, society etc (or at least not only about these things) and has become a theological battle, or really a religious test that's used like a shibboleth to identify which god you worship.
This is why an issue that affects such a small part of our population has become a major battleground and dividing line: Trans has such enormous symbolic weight.
For Team Blue/Good, Trans is about liberation from oppressive structures, is about relieving the pain of the suffering marginalized, is about a future where everyone gets to Live their Truth™ and Be Seen as their True Authentic Self™, is about once again living out a successful civil rights struggle, where the Good people liberate an oppressed minority from the clutches of the Bad people, which means as much spiritually and emotionally to modern liberals as Exodus does to Jews (as a sacred narrative).
For Team Red/Bad, Trans is an assault on the family, on traditional sex roles and parenting and family structures, is another plot to undermine the country, is another dagger aimed at the heart of Christianity by the godless Left.
People can usually reach some sort of agreement when it comes to sharing assets, resources, and other tangible things, but when it comes to symbols, and especially sacred symbols, this is where both sides decide no compromise is possible and the hatred starts to get ugly and dangerous.
There's also a degree of authoritarian thought control involved, it's not enough to treat trans people with respect, the demand is that you treat and think of them *exactly* the same as someone born to their chosen sex/gender, and that's offensive to people who don't otherwise have right wing or religious beliefs.
"which means as much spiritually and emotionally to modern liberals as Exodus does to Jews (as a sacred narrative)."
"[A]s Exodus does to Jews"? You are speaking for yourself as a Jew maybe? Or is it your learned wisdom of Judaic values I should thank you for sharing?
"i stand by my analogy but no need to thank me (or agree)...Baruch Hashem!"
My post left room for you to make a choice - either to take up my meaning and to directly engage with it, or - if you chose - to evade it. You have chosen to evade it.
And no - to be clear - the question was not your ethnicity, which is beside the point.
David Roberts is the best writer and interviewer on climate and energy issues working today. His stuff on his "Volts" site is truly superb! (It's at https://www.volts.wtf/). And it's not just the expected hand-wringing and doomsaying; he discusses amazing new directions in how we can transform the ways we produce and use energy, and is the most hopeful thing on how we can address climate change that I've seen. Excellent stuff which I highly recommend.
And yet . . . whenever he leaves that area and comments on other issues, I have the same (if somewhat less hyperbolic!) reaction as Jesse here. He's a hard as rock progressive and/or leftist, and he speaks with a moral certainty that is absent from his climate and energy writing and mostly unearned. That other stuff drives me crazy and I go out of my way to avoid it.
He's an interesting case, where one side of him is truly outstanding and the other side is, well, not.
Twitter exposes a lot of people like this, Ken 'Popehat' White being an excellent example. Writers too, I can't understand how someone like David Simon, whose work is so complex and nuanced, can be such an ignorant shitlib in public (let's not even mention Stephen King), it really lowers my opinion of them.
There's an odd expectation we all have that because someone does something well they do everything well. I wonder if it's just a mental shortcut or something more complicated.
It's more like being disappointed in people who've demonstrated their intellect and nuance previously than a general expectation they be good at everything.
Except...in reality I'd argue it often doesn't work out that way - like craft workers and athletes, a lot of intellectual labor is specialized - many writers do just one thing well - whether because it's 'their field' or because certain types of thinking actually do not carry over and 'work' in all areas of thought...
...I have a scientist friend who is genuinely brilliant in his field, and can explain his ideas in lay terms excellently...politically, in a pov that will never be shared and that I don't even really think about...his thinking is, imho, basic, rather pedestrian...
There was a stupid article getting shared FB a while back, something like, “10 foods that these scientists will never eat!” but it turned out to just be some people with PhDs unrelated to food science who had heard bad things about canned tomatoes. Well-credentialed people sometimes forget that their knowledge is domain-specific, and casual audiences don’t typically challenge opinions of someone with more degrees than them.
That’s what annoyed me so much about all the social media “Dr. influencers” during Covid... “Trust me. I went to medical school!” As if the single semester of pathology that they took 10 years ago in med school before going on to specialize in dermatology makes them at all an expert on virology or epidemiology.
Anyone with reasonable intelligence and access to a scholarly research search engine can probably know just as much as they do about such matters.
Not to mention I’d never trust a TikTok-ing “scholar” on principle alone.
My view is that he brings the same level of analysis, nuance and certitude to climate and energy as he does to any other issue.
My favorite tweet of his is this one. He laments that the "fate of the world is being decided" in reference to the Biden Build Back Better legislation. Just wonderful hyperbole and doomcasting, very much on-brand for him.
David Roberts "laments that the 'fate of the world is being decided' in reference to the Biden Build Back Better legislation. Just wonderful hyperbole and doomcasting, very much on-brand for him."
This mischaracterizes Roberts' post.
Roberts responds to a Fall 2021 post that says two of the writer's "collaborators" were ignorant that "Congress was in the middle of a very high stakes negotiation." (Unclear what part of BBB was being discussed.)
Roberts responds:
"This feeling that the fate of the world is being decided & most people aren't paying attention makes me want to pull my hair out."
This view of being a Cassandra in the face of climate change is not unique to Roberts, but is actually widespread among climate scientists - who almost unanimously a/ see climate change as dangerously advancing and b/ as catastrophically ignored and/or un-dealt with. So - he's 'connecting' with the writer's experience - with a common set of 'people who see doom coming but are ignored' feelings.
So - nothing extreme or remarkable in Roberts' pov - its endemic to his field. Not that you have to share that pov...vs labeling it 'hyperbolic.'
See e.g.:
"The Emotional Toll of Climate Change on Science Professionals"
Very snide; I approve. You had me going at first. I didn't know who David Roberts was, and figured (despite your subheading) that he must have pointed out some glaring error in Bazelon's piece (which I have not read) that you'd somehow missed. Glad to see that wasn't the case.
I'm gonna say, and this is rare from me to you, not so much on the sarcasm.
Important topic but while the sarcastic tone is deserved I don't think it serves your piece. Or rather, boil it down into a few paragraphs. The "good people" thing is a point worth making, but not writing the whole piece directed towards that punchline.
Now everyone will tell me I'm wrong and they're probably right. You are actually a better writer than me, but that was my reaction. Cheers!
I think Scott Alexander had the right idea, you only get so many pieces like this over your career before you get written off as a culture warrior, so they should be rationed out carefully.
I agree w/S's point. But as irony or snark it fails - tediously went on and on, labored (the supposed 'cathartic'-ness defeated by S's mental thoroughness), devoid of actual wit...ended sounding much like S at his worst - intellectually peevish. Just not Singal's strength.
First, kudos for not only envisioning the David Robertses of the world as human-sized phalluses performing executive Twitter functions, but also for going as far as imagining the extensive vasculature and having the bravery to add this to a public description. I do this and have always figured there's something a little wrong with me. Either that's not true or you share the same malady, and I'm fine with either.
I thought of you right away when reading Bazelon's piece, which I learned of through Matt Taiibbi's Substack. Taibbi is admittedly averse to delving into trans issues because it's such an outlier of a third rail even within the already off-limits pool of Wokish crusades. That may be why he didn't comment on what to me is the biggest boo-boo in Bazelon's story--the claim that only "very small group of people" detransition, which is dropped in obliquely and without support.
The piece represented a major walk-back of the lib-media consensus, but still kept one foot firmly planted in bullshit. Here's part of a comment I left:
---
One of the things that's earned Singal so much opprobrium from trans Twitter--which, if a physical place, would be a long-unemptied porta-john the size of a Costco -- is his pointing out that the majority of people who start identifying as trans as teenagers do in fact detransition, something like 70 to 80 percent across aggregated datasets (and who knows how reliable most of that is, but Singal is meticulous and does his best with what he's given).
It's obviously not in the interest of the lunatic arm of the transgender community, mostly people with established psychological problems prior to exploring gender fluidity, to allow the public to know this. That they are cancelliciously fervent about suppressing this number underscores their grasp of the truth of the 'social contagion' idea.
If this is a solely natural phenomenon, why are so many trans/nonbinary people intent on actively growing their own numbers, like a club? Shouldn't they see this as tantamount to 'conversion therapy' for gay people, a clear failure? It's uncool when what is left of the thinking citizenry just allows mentally troubled people with purple bangs and a yen for self-mutilation to have veto power over the entire lives of, say, tenured professors or company VPs.
But not only are 'liberals' not stopping the craziness, they're actively cheering it on. Everyone knows why billionaires pulling the levers love it when the electorate is distracted by culture wars, but a lot of cogent people have been held captive for too long by this anti-reality circus.
"It's uncool when what is left of the thinking citizenry just allows mentally troubled people with purple bangs and a yen for self-mutilation to have veto power over the entire lives of, say, tenured professors or company VPs." !!!!
when you want to convince someone of something you know is true, you patiently explain the facts and calmly answer their questions, and hope that by laying out a simple, clear case you can help them understand better; when you want to convince someone of something you know is false, you have to twist facts and apply heavy doses of jargon, plus emotional blackmail and moral bullying, and if that doesn't work you have to shriek and threaten.
Holy shit, I'd like to report a murder. Brilliant takedown of Roberts and people who share his mindset.
His last comments are pretty illustrative of what's so appealing about staking out a "progressive" opinion on these issues--he seems like a deeply insecure person who's almost pathologically terrified that he's secretly a bad person (I would not be surprised if he suffers from recurring dreams where he's in an SS uniform, directing traffic at a concentration camp). Adopting the "progressive" position allows him to believe he's one of the good ones, and even do all manner of evil in the name of the Aryan race, whoops I meant trans people
To be clear I'm not in any way comparing trans people to Nazis, but I AM comparing people like David Roberts to Nazis (and yes, aware of Godwin's Law, don't @ me)
Sorry, Jesse. I like sarcasm, irony, snark, dry humor, etc., but this was just way too belabored -- it went on way longer in snark mode than necessary to make the point. It apparently works for some people who are already fans, but I could never imagine sharing this post with someone who wasn't already familiar with your ordinary writing and personality.
Okay, Jesse got that out of his system. Now, can we talk about the fact that the NYT even published Bazelon's article AND left the comments on? Moreover, the comments were about 90% skeptical about gender ideology and alarmed by the trend of affirmative care for youth. The latent sexism and homophobia of gender dysphoria, and examples of women being raped in prison by men who identify as women were also topics permitted in the comments section. This felt like a big development to me because it showed, for millions of subscribers to see, that the overwhelming majority of lefty NYT readers are fed up with being told they are supposed to uncritically assess the alarming trend of biological sex denialism.
On the other hand, these one off articles like Bazelon's are also offset by the dozens of NYT articles each week celebrating gender ideology and biological sex denialism, so there's that.
I didn't like this piece at all. Reading others' responses I kept thinking "Are they damning with faint praise?" as in "It's great because it's not common, coming from Jesse?" Or do they really like it (or how MANY really like it -- who can tell in a world governed by the spiral of silence)?
At least I got the joke, as apparently did all the other commenters, none of us victimized by Poe's law. But snark is snark, and it doesn't describe Jesse Singal.
For me, there is a main takeaway -- the issue of what social media does to people. Apparently even David Roberts (about whom I otherwise know almost nothing) recognized it and -- also apparently -- unsuccessfully fought it. According to some of the comments, he's a very good commenter on climate change but on other topics, notably (here) trans issues, he's a full-scale Twitter blow-hard.
How does that happen? Maybe it doesn't take social media. I've known people who seemed awfully authoritative on some topics but as far as I could tell were absolutely mentally unstable on others. I've seen some of that in myself (a long story that no one here wants to hear and that I won't get into, except to say experiencing a change in a hardened position is humbling and can bring into doubt just about, well, everything).
But social media. Jesus, it's a bitch! You can try to be reasonable but again and again (and again) you run into the "Davids Roberts" of the world, and the pressure to strike back builds. No one can contain themselves all the time. One thing I particularly like about Jesse is that he is so even-tempered and balanced. "Look." he says, "Here are the facts and the uncertainties. What can, and can't, we make of all this?" I wish I could be more like that.
But even Jesse, G*d bless him, has to let some steam out occasionally. Let the Egyptian first born die, just this once. Dayenu!
I understand the sentiment. I really do. But I don't have to like the the piece.
It's amazing how little being an actual subject matter expert matters, isn't it? You'll just be accused of being a "well actually" guy, or "gatekeeping" when you try and correct bad opinions and information, ask me how I know.
One thing Roberts got right? Trans issues absolutely drive people bonkers, and to take positions that are not only indefensible but downright unintelligible.
Trans maximilists remind me of libertarians, who will twist themselves into all sorts of rhetorical knots just so they can defend their philosophy as 100% consistent. Gender theory often has no point of contact with the real world, but its adherents cling to it like religion.
You are hilarious, Jesse! This is why I became a Blocked and Reported subscriber and then a subscriber to Singal-Minded. It has become must-read as soon as it hits my inbox.
I fear that when I see these people immediately run to their battle stations and tweet authoritatively that there is nothing to see here and no reason to have any concern over a massive increase in the number of natal females seeking medical transition I sometimes am tempted by evil to wish that it happens in their family so they might feel a little less certain. It is easy to paint parents like me as bigoted or just clueless when you don't know us and haven't walked in our shoes, but when your depressed and anxious and eating disordered self-harming child bathes in Tumblr posts about being trans and then finds the answer to why they hate their body and you want to take it slow because there are a lot of variables at play and you are arrogant enough to think you know some things about your own child the skepticism comes a bit more naturally. And btw there is no disgust with regard to your own beloved child -- but there is sadness about a bunch of really heavy duty medical interventions (daily injections for life and a double mastectomy are not a walk in the park nor is reducing your life expectancy and losing fertility before you have even really matured enough to know why you have fertility) and that sadness comes because we love our children and we think they are worthy of more respect and investigation than just taking all of their claims at face value and then putting them under the knife in response. But I am not a hateful person and so in the end I retract my wish that David Roberts see his child in this situation because it makes life so much harder for these kids and we have no idea if it will benefit them in the long run or not. I am also really freaked out that no one on the left ever seems to question whether being trans means that you need medical intervention. If self-id is what matters why do we insist on trying to remake the body in seemingly all cases?
I have similar uncharitable thoughts when I hear about defund the police advocates getting robbed, it's not nice but the schadenfreude feels earned.
wishing you the best in what is undoubtedly a difficult situation. i'm not a parent yet and no matter how my kid(s) turn out I will love them, but i pray that they don't turn out trans
Isn't it kinda like hoping - despite your very best efforts - that your kids don't turn out to be drug addicts and then die of a fentanyl OD (intentionally consumed or not)?
What do parents do to avoid/interdict such a path? Should it be any different for parents of kids zeroing in on trans nonsense while being immature?
I do not think this is hard. But some folks seem to lack the courage of their convictions. It is your child, why would you not use your common sense?
i'm quite a few years away from having kids, but at the first instance of my kid expressing a desire to be trans (the earlier the worse), here's my order prioritization:
1) study the laws in the state i live re child transition, procedures, timeline, parental rights, etc (this is assuming under 18 transition has not been made federally illegal by the time i'm a parent, non zero chance this happens)
2) support my child through therapy (find a therapist who isn't a radical gender-ist), other forms of support to isolate the cause
3) study up on my child's school curriculum and culture - are there gender ideologists among the staff? is my child a part of the GAS at their school?
4) either shield or steer my child away from thinking they're trans or move to a state that is more pro-parental rights or has banned under 18 transition
5) my child goes through a moody puberty like any other child and then goes on to live a normal life. profit!
I belong to a support group where pretty much everyone in the group does these steps. Some have success, others don't. I've had limited success in that my daughter doesn't seem to be that driven to medically transition, but she still identifies as trans.
When I started to run with a weird crowd my mom just moved me to Europe for a few years.
I've read your comment twice and I still can't figure out what you're suggesting a parent would do or not do.
Stand between your kid and the cliff. Is that clearer?
Yup. Ok, well easier said then done, especially once they turn 18, which my kid is doing in about 5 weeks. I don't think she's going to physically transition any time soon fortunately, but she still identifies as trans.
Well, good luck to you. Or more pressingly, your daughter. I mean that in all sincerity.
I know, having become quite well-read on the topic, that addiction in teenagers and older, is a subtle down slope that may not be obvious. Lots of enablers out there.
I cannot imagine, having myself been the parent of 3 kids who went through teenage years w/o getting caught in the oxy or other vice, the agony of dealing with a kid addicted.
But my comment was intended for those for whom the slope has become known. Stand in the way. Be that parent. I realize that at 18, in our warped unscientific country, kids gonna do what they want. But, for me, I'd still stand in the way.
Also, I'm sure that for all the parents whose kids do become addicted to drugs, it had simply never occurred to them to stand between their kid and the cliff.
Thank you. This seems so obvious to me, as a parent in a similar situation, but according to my ex-comrades on the left, we're nothing but bigots, analogous to the parents who disowned their gay kids in the 80s and 90s. They've completely lost their ability to think in any sort of nuanced, adult way on any issue that can possibly be thought of as being under the social justice umbrella.
"according to my ex-comrades on the left"
1/ 'Fraid I'm in yr shoes w/my child.
2/ Walp, here's one anecdotal in reply to yrs...I am progressive and have absolutely NOT found any such unanimity of pov by either liberal or left wing friends and acquaintances. i.e. - no "ex-comrades."
Please see my response to Tracy above - if for one reason or another your friends/acquaintances are predominantly 'woke' liberals (who define their left cred's on the basis of race or gender issues), or cultural - vs economic (i.e., Sanders-type) - progressives, your experience may be different than mine.
"no one on the left ever seems to question whether being trans means that you need medical intervention."
"No one on the left ever seems to question"? I don't think that's true of liberals or progressives (a range of left-of-liberal leftists):
1/ Feminists labeled "TERFs" are left wing.
2/ This British socialist newspaper article complains that, in England and globally, "some self-described feminists and even sections of the left....Sections of trade union leaders, Labour Party activists and some left organizations have raised objections to the right to self-identification and more generally to the fight for trans liberation."
https://www.socialistalternative.org/2020/05/12/transphobia-and-the-left-bogus-science-and-bogus-marxism/
3/ The leftist Glen Greenwald has written critically of trans medicalization in connection with the spike in female teen trans identification.
4/ The liberal NYT trans medicine article in question cited numerous individuals, who may be presumed to be liberal - though not necessarily left wing - who questioned medicalization.
So - from the above - liberal and left wing opinion on trans medicalization appear unsettled and divided on this issue. Likely on the left there's an underlying "political" vs. "cultural" left division - with some overlap - where more study would point up these divisions.
My sense is that all of the mainstream left press assumes that in the long term trans people will all want/need medical interventions of some sort. My impression is that GCF just reject the whole concept of being trans and thus would not support a social acceptance of trans people in their chosen gender with or without transition services, and that others are calling for more care in determining when to offer medical services, but I am wondering who is calling for a paradigm shift where we both allow people to self-identify via pronouns and names and changing gender markers on legal documents but don't routinely offer medical interventions to change appearance and voice to match the appearance of the norm of the gender that has been selected. If the trans population continues to grow, then there is a question as to how to manage dysphoria and provide a path to social transition without all trans people needing to be on hormones forever. I am wondering if trans people will begin to question whether medicalization is necessary to live their best lives.
"my sense is that all of the mainstream left press assumes that in the long term trans people will all want/need medical interventions of some sort."
1/ ok - so i see, as i suspect might be the case, you're calling the mainstream press "left" vs. liberal as I would - for the purposes of this discussion, we don't have to go into that question.
2/ but that's just the "assum[ption]" that i do NOT find in the "mainstream...press; i AM seeing questioning - a view i've given some evidence to support.
after all, whether you call it liberal or "leftist," in pov, the nyt is "mainstream...press"...
I did not read that article as questioning the underlying idea that medicalization was ultimately necessary as part of being a happy trans person -- I read it as questioning how much time should elapse before intervening with young people to ensure that their identity was stable.
1/ "underlying idea that medicalization was ultimately necessary as part of being a happy trans person."
I see yr point - w/its focus on trans identifying young people, the piece does not focus on the broader q. of whether medicalization is ultimately desirable or psychologically beneficial for all trans people.
2/ As to the question of whether young trans identifying people should "ultimately" medically transition - well the article does not directly tackle that question...but, tactically speaking, it does raise a lot of questions.
the gist seems to be putting on the brakes and shifting opinion - w/the unstated but clearly suggested idea that either psychological illness or social factors can make a child or teenager want medicalization that is ultimately NOT right for them:
"the draft said...they should undergo a comprehensive diagnostic assessment, for the purpose of understanding the psychological and social context of their gender identity and how it might intersect with other mental-health conditions."
The somewhat evasive wpath language is "intersect" - when 'cause' or 'contribute to' trans identification actually fits better in relation to the 'wait and see' protocol discussed elsewhere in the article.
So...I do see how you could read the article as you do...even though the trans advocates clearly did not: those cited were outraged by what they characterized as 'denying crucial care on the grounds that a trans person might grow out of it or regret it later.'
It's starting to become obvious that the Trans issue has moved out of the realm of the political, is no longer about kids, sex, gender, society etc (or at least not only about these things) and has become a theological battle, or really a religious test that's used like a shibboleth to identify which god you worship.
This is why an issue that affects such a small part of our population has become a major battleground and dividing line: Trans has such enormous symbolic weight.
For Team Blue/Good, Trans is about liberation from oppressive structures, is about relieving the pain of the suffering marginalized, is about a future where everyone gets to Live their Truth™ and Be Seen as their True Authentic Self™, is about once again living out a successful civil rights struggle, where the Good people liberate an oppressed minority from the clutches of the Bad people, which means as much spiritually and emotionally to modern liberals as Exodus does to Jews (as a sacred narrative).
For Team Red/Bad, Trans is an assault on the family, on traditional sex roles and parenting and family structures, is another plot to undermine the country, is another dagger aimed at the heart of Christianity by the godless Left.
People can usually reach some sort of agreement when it comes to sharing assets, resources, and other tangible things, but when it comes to symbols, and especially sacred symbols, this is where both sides decide no compromise is possible and the hatred starts to get ugly and dangerous.
There's also a degree of authoritarian thought control involved, it's not enough to treat trans people with respect, the demand is that you treat and think of them *exactly* the same as someone born to their chosen sex/gender, and that's offensive to people who don't otherwise have right wing or religious beliefs.
as soon as people acquire a fresh new sacred belief they need to make sure everyone else hears the good news and agrees to worship along w them.
maybe it's like when a friend gets a new girlfriend it's not enough for him to think she's great, he needs you to think she's great too??
"which means as much spiritually and emotionally to modern liberals as Exodus does to Jews (as a sacred narrative)."
"[A]s Exodus does to Jews"? You are speaking for yourself as a Jew maybe? Or is it your learned wisdom of Judaic values I should thank you for sharing?
i stand by my analogy but no need to thank me (or agree)...Baruch Hashem!
"i stand by my analogy but no need to thank me (or agree)...Baruch Hashem!"
My post left room for you to make a choice - either to take up my meaning and to directly engage with it, or - if you chose - to evade it. You have chosen to evade it.
And no - to be clear - the question was not your ethnicity, which is beside the point.
David Roberts is the best writer and interviewer on climate and energy issues working today. His stuff on his "Volts" site is truly superb! (It's at https://www.volts.wtf/). And it's not just the expected hand-wringing and doomsaying; he discusses amazing new directions in how we can transform the ways we produce and use energy, and is the most hopeful thing on how we can address climate change that I've seen. Excellent stuff which I highly recommend.
And yet . . . whenever he leaves that area and comments on other issues, I have the same (if somewhat less hyperbolic!) reaction as Jesse here. He's a hard as rock progressive and/or leftist, and he speaks with a moral certainty that is absent from his climate and energy writing and mostly unearned. That other stuff drives me crazy and I go out of my way to avoid it.
He's an interesting case, where one side of him is truly outstanding and the other side is, well, not.
Twitter exposes a lot of people like this, Ken 'Popehat' White being an excellent example. Writers too, I can't understand how someone like David Simon, whose work is so complex and nuanced, can be such an ignorant shitlib in public (let's not even mention Stephen King), it really lowers my opinion of them.
There's an odd expectation we all have that because someone does something well they do everything well. I wonder if it's just a mental shortcut or something more complicated.
It's more like being disappointed in people who've demonstrated their intellect and nuance previously than a general expectation they be good at everything.
Except...in reality I'd argue it often doesn't work out that way - like craft workers and athletes, a lot of intellectual labor is specialized - many writers do just one thing well - whether because it's 'their field' or because certain types of thinking actually do not carry over and 'work' in all areas of thought...
...I have a scientist friend who is genuinely brilliant in his field, and can explain his ideas in lay terms excellently...politically, in a pov that will never be shared and that I don't even really think about...his thinking is, imho, basic, rather pedestrian...
I had to unfollow Simon.
There was a stupid article getting shared FB a while back, something like, “10 foods that these scientists will never eat!” but it turned out to just be some people with PhDs unrelated to food science who had heard bad things about canned tomatoes. Well-credentialed people sometimes forget that their knowledge is domain-specific, and casual audiences don’t typically challenge opinions of someone with more degrees than them.
That’s what annoyed me so much about all the social media “Dr. influencers” during Covid... “Trust me. I went to medical school!” As if the single semester of pathology that they took 10 years ago in med school before going on to specialize in dermatology makes them at all an expert on virology or epidemiology.
Anyone with reasonable intelligence and access to a scholarly research search engine can probably know just as much as they do about such matters.
Not to mention I’d never trust a TikTok-ing “scholar” on principle alone.
My view is that he brings the same level of analysis, nuance and certitude to climate and energy as he does to any other issue.
My favorite tweet of his is this one. He laments that the "fate of the world is being decided" in reference to the Biden Build Back Better legislation. Just wonderful hyperbole and doomcasting, very much on-brand for him.
https://twitter.com/drvolts/status/1444093935043768320
David Roberts "laments that the 'fate of the world is being decided' in reference to the Biden Build Back Better legislation. Just wonderful hyperbole and doomcasting, very much on-brand for him."
This mischaracterizes Roberts' post.
Roberts responds to a Fall 2021 post that says two of the writer's "collaborators" were ignorant that "Congress was in the middle of a very high stakes negotiation." (Unclear what part of BBB was being discussed.)
Roberts responds:
"This feeling that the fate of the world is being decided & most people aren't paying attention makes me want to pull my hair out."
This view of being a Cassandra in the face of climate change is not unique to Roberts, but is actually widespread among climate scientists - who almost unanimously a/ see climate change as dangerously advancing and b/ as catastrophically ignored and/or un-dealt with. So - he's 'connecting' with the writer's experience - with a common set of 'people who see doom coming but are ignored' feelings.
So - nothing extreme or remarkable in Roberts' pov - its endemic to his field. Not that you have to share that pov...vs labeling it 'hyperbolic.'
See e.g.:
"The Emotional Toll of Climate Change on Science Professionals"
https://eos.org/features/the-emotional-toll-of-climate-change-on-science-professionals
(Somewhere...The Atlantic perhaps...there was another article on this topic.)
I follow Roberts for his climate science, and it's really good
Very snide; I approve. You had me going at first. I didn't know who David Roberts was, and figured (despite your subheading) that he must have pointed out some glaring error in Bazelon's piece (which I have not read) that you'd somehow missed. Glad to see that wasn't the case.
I'm gonna say, and this is rare from me to you, not so much on the sarcasm.
Important topic but while the sarcastic tone is deserved I don't think it serves your piece. Or rather, boil it down into a few paragraphs. The "good people" thing is a point worth making, but not writing the whole piece directed towards that punchline.
Now everyone will tell me I'm wrong and they're probably right. You are actually a better writer than me, but that was my reaction. Cheers!
I think Scott Alexander had the right idea, you only get so many pieces like this over your career before you get written off as a culture warrior, so they should be rationed out carefully.
See:
Greenwald, Glenn
A steady diet? Too rich. Once in a while...delicious.
Well, Jesse used his shot at one of these pieces wisely. I think it's brilliant. My favorite of any of his posts.
"Now everyone will tell me I'm wrong"
No. You're right.
I agree w/S's point. But as irony or snark it fails - tediously went on and on, labored (the supposed 'cathartic'-ness defeated by S's mental thoroughness), devoid of actual wit...ended sounding much like S at his worst - intellectually peevish. Just not Singal's strength.
First, kudos for not only envisioning the David Robertses of the world as human-sized phalluses performing executive Twitter functions, but also for going as far as imagining the extensive vasculature and having the bravery to add this to a public description. I do this and have always figured there's something a little wrong with me. Either that's not true or you share the same malady, and I'm fine with either.
I thought of you right away when reading Bazelon's piece, which I learned of through Matt Taiibbi's Substack. Taibbi is admittedly averse to delving into trans issues because it's such an outlier of a third rail even within the already off-limits pool of Wokish crusades. That may be why he didn't comment on what to me is the biggest boo-boo in Bazelon's story--the claim that only "very small group of people" detransition, which is dropped in obliquely and without support.
The piece represented a major walk-back of the lib-media consensus, but still kept one foot firmly planted in bullshit. Here's part of a comment I left:
---
One of the things that's earned Singal so much opprobrium from trans Twitter--which, if a physical place, would be a long-unemptied porta-john the size of a Costco -- is his pointing out that the majority of people who start identifying as trans as teenagers do in fact detransition, something like 70 to 80 percent across aggregated datasets (and who knows how reliable most of that is, but Singal is meticulous and does his best with what he's given).
It's obviously not in the interest of the lunatic arm of the transgender community, mostly people with established psychological problems prior to exploring gender fluidity, to allow the public to know this. That they are cancelliciously fervent about suppressing this number underscores their grasp of the truth of the 'social contagion' idea.
If this is a solely natural phenomenon, why are so many trans/nonbinary people intent on actively growing their own numbers, like a club? Shouldn't they see this as tantamount to 'conversion therapy' for gay people, a clear failure? It's uncool when what is left of the thinking citizenry just allows mentally troubled people with purple bangs and a yen for self-mutilation to have veto power over the entire lives of, say, tenured professors or company VPs.
But not only are 'liberals' not stopping the craziness, they're actively cheering it on. Everyone knows why billionaires pulling the levers love it when the electorate is distracted by culture wars, but a lot of cogent people have been held captive for too long by this anti-reality circus.
"It's uncool when what is left of the thinking citizenry just allows mentally troubled people with purple bangs and a yen for self-mutilation to have veto power over the entire lives of, say, tenured professors or company VPs." !!!!
when you want to convince someone of something you know is true, you patiently explain the facts and calmly answer their questions, and hope that by laying out a simple, clear case you can help them understand better; when you want to convince someone of something you know is false, you have to twist facts and apply heavy doses of jargon, plus emotional blackmail and moral bullying, and if that doesn't work you have to shriek and threaten.
by their tantrums ye shall know them...
By itself this article was worth my annual subscription fee.
Holy shit, I'd like to report a murder. Brilliant takedown of Roberts and people who share his mindset.
His last comments are pretty illustrative of what's so appealing about staking out a "progressive" opinion on these issues--he seems like a deeply insecure person who's almost pathologically terrified that he's secretly a bad person (I would not be surprised if he suffers from recurring dreams where he's in an SS uniform, directing traffic at a concentration camp). Adopting the "progressive" position allows him to believe he's one of the good ones, and even do all manner of evil in the name of the Aryan race, whoops I meant trans people
To be clear I'm not in any way comparing trans people to Nazis, but I AM comparing people like David Roberts to Nazis (and yes, aware of Godwin's Law, don't @ me)
Didn't you get the memo that NUANCE=VIOLENCE?
Sorry, Jesse. I like sarcasm, irony, snark, dry humor, etc., but this was just way too belabored -- it went on way longer in snark mode than necessary to make the point. It apparently works for some people who are already fans, but I could never imagine sharing this post with someone who wasn't already familiar with your ordinary writing and personality.
I liked it but you’re right that it was overlong. Lost its punch.
Your last sentence is correct, but I don’t think Jesse wrote this to be something more than an “in joke” / personal piece.
Okay, Jesse got that out of his system. Now, can we talk about the fact that the NYT even published Bazelon's article AND left the comments on? Moreover, the comments were about 90% skeptical about gender ideology and alarmed by the trend of affirmative care for youth. The latent sexism and homophobia of gender dysphoria, and examples of women being raped in prison by men who identify as women were also topics permitted in the comments section. This felt like a big development to me because it showed, for millions of subscribers to see, that the overwhelming majority of lefty NYT readers are fed up with being told they are supposed to uncritically assess the alarming trend of biological sex denialism.
On the other hand, these one off articles like Bazelon's are also offset by the dozens of NYT articles each week celebrating gender ideology and biological sex denialism, so there's that.
I didn't like this piece at all. Reading others' responses I kept thinking "Are they damning with faint praise?" as in "It's great because it's not common, coming from Jesse?" Or do they really like it (or how MANY really like it -- who can tell in a world governed by the spiral of silence)?
At least I got the joke, as apparently did all the other commenters, none of us victimized by Poe's law. But snark is snark, and it doesn't describe Jesse Singal.
For me, there is a main takeaway -- the issue of what social media does to people. Apparently even David Roberts (about whom I otherwise know almost nothing) recognized it and -- also apparently -- unsuccessfully fought it. According to some of the comments, he's a very good commenter on climate change but on other topics, notably (here) trans issues, he's a full-scale Twitter blow-hard.
How does that happen? Maybe it doesn't take social media. I've known people who seemed awfully authoritative on some topics but as far as I could tell were absolutely mentally unstable on others. I've seen some of that in myself (a long story that no one here wants to hear and that I won't get into, except to say experiencing a change in a hardened position is humbling and can bring into doubt just about, well, everything).
But social media. Jesus, it's a bitch! You can try to be reasonable but again and again (and again) you run into the "Davids Roberts" of the world, and the pressure to strike back builds. No one can contain themselves all the time. One thing I particularly like about Jesse is that he is so even-tempered and balanced. "Look." he says, "Here are the facts and the uncertainties. What can, and can't, we make of all this?" I wish I could be more like that.
But even Jesse, G*d bless him, has to let some steam out occasionally. Let the Egyptian first born die, just this once. Dayenu!
I understand the sentiment. I really do. But I don't have to like the the piece.
It's amazing how little being an actual subject matter expert matters, isn't it? You'll just be accused of being a "well actually" guy, or "gatekeeping" when you try and correct bad opinions and information, ask me how I know.
One thing Roberts got right? Trans issues absolutely drive people bonkers, and to take positions that are not only indefensible but downright unintelligible.
Trans maximilists remind me of libertarians, who will twist themselves into all sorts of rhetorical knots just so they can defend their philosophy as 100% consistent. Gender theory often has no point of contact with the real world, but its adherents cling to it like religion.
You are hilarious, Jesse! This is why I became a Blocked and Reported subscriber and then a subscriber to Singal-Minded. It has become must-read as soon as it hits my inbox.
Bravo, Jesse! We need more Baddies like you in journalism 👏👏👏💕💕