In most of their their worldviews(there are several different factions with different answers) there is an intrinsic 'trans' quality that some people are born with.
Yes, and what is that quality?
The 'trans' quality frequently causes kids great distress around puberty
Frequently? So not always? So what else can we use to judge if a kid is "trans"? Dysphoria is hugely problematic (given kids desist) but at least concrete.
If we grant that there is an innate quality that we can easily distinguish, there is no problem. The point is that nailing this down in some definitive way seems to be difficult
Just as, if we accept that there is a trans-inclusive category called "women", there is no fundamental problem. Yet some random Daily Wire dad who dresses like an actuary has driven left-wingers into a frenzy trying to get an answer to this basic question.
This is a microcosm of this whole debate. All of this sounds good in the abstract. Once you start discussing it you not only get tough questions from traditionalists, but even feminists who ask how the markers of this innate quality are not regressive (it often boils down to stereotypes).
Tanista
27d ago
The idea of "irreversible damage" to kids bodies complements the idea of "driving trans kids to suicide." Together they are a recipe for endless back and forth argument, since both sides can position themselves as the ones most concerned about children's well-being.
Assuming that these are not rival empirical claims that can be investigated, yes.
If you tell me you believe in fluxberries and can define it and therefore I should do what you want but:
- You cannot provide a coherent definition of fluxberries when pressed even a little. In fact, the definition changes before our eyes when it suits you
- You actively try to bully, discredit or destroy people who demand a coherent definition or raise questions about why this a slightly different colored berry is not, in fact, a "fluxberry"
- You explicitly admit that you cannot define a previously concrete and less controversial term like "berries"
I have to wonder to what degree you believe you think you can justify belief in fluxberries - certainly you seem to believe in a distinct way to how you believe in say...policemen, or fish.
I don't see how OP's original point about the reluctance to square this doesn't apply:
My impression is that for quite a few of these people, they would be unwilling to clearly answer the question, "what are trans kids?" without getting evasive and yet protecting that category is a moral imperative.
Like, we know for a fact that some already do this with "woman", that one is not even debatable because Kentaji Brown did it in front of Congress - and all the same problems apply there. I'm supposed to grant extra charity on "trans child"?
Why is "victim blaming" in quotes? You're actually blaming the victim. This is the second post I've seen this morning asking women to have more agency over being raped or assaulted.
Either it's not victim blaming because we tell other people in similar situations (e.g. leaving a car unlocked in a bad neighborhood) to take preventative measures without that label. Or it is but it's a specific thing where we don't apply the same logic to other places, which raises questions.
Either way, I can get people putting it in quotes.
Tanista
27d ago
"Teach men not to rape" infuriates the political opposition
The political opposition was routed out of places like university campuses where this stuff runs rampant. It's aimed at fellow traveler men.
But then it occurred to me: the message makes 100% sense if we start from the assumption that modern feminists, eager to right cultural wrongs of the past that they perceive, really want to make sure their messaging never ever entails even a hint of the notion that women need to exercise any level of agency in order to avoid rape, assault or harassment of any type i.e. avoid bad men, because in all cases that would be “victim blaming” and horrific etc.
You could do this while admitting that rape is disproportionately carried out by Dark Triad types (especially when society has already been trying for decades to grab all of the low-hanging fruit of "normal men who just think this is okay") and not harangue Robin Hanson types as well. From what I recall from my early internet days when Jezebel was strong, feminists were insistent on rejecting this sort of point.
There's an element of class guilt that is also useful.
Also, if you believe rape is about power or some patriarchal ideology not sex, I suppose "teach men not to rape" sounds more appealing as an actual solution and not just a cynical messaging tactic.
Did you overlook when I said I don't hold these beliefs?
I was using the generic you in the example. It was less about you holding the beliefs yourself, I disagreed on how much charity you were granting.
Like, I didn't assume that you personally were for bullying Rebecca Tuvel or any unfortunate who asked about transracials...
See, this is why center-left people don't feel like allying with the right, despite our increasing frustration with the regressive far-left
If the center left had proven even vaguely able to resist this sort of thing, the Right would also find them to be a more attractive option than tit for tat. Or would not have needed to get involved at all.
People like Rufo & DeSantis exist because attempting to appeal to universal principles or allowing the academy to police itself has utterly failed. A lot of this stuff (especially in America, in the UK the Tories take a lot of blame since they were in power) happened under their eye. They not only refused to do anything about it, they often attacked both right and left critiques of it.
And then, when someone goes "too far" in response, they lament that there's no partner for common sense and sanity and they definitely would have done something if not for those crazies who made it too tense to get involved.
Yeah, uh-huh.
Tanista
26d ago
I think "normal" people don't get how deranged this debate can get online.
That might actually help along the swiftboating: surely no one would attack JKR in this insane way if she wasn't really a Holocaust denier (yes, that was recently a thing)/racist/person who thinks all trans are rapists right?
I probably was harsh, and RenOS rightly accused me of venting my frustration here.
But I don't think my OP implied it was just malice. There are many reasons (few of which I respect) for this behavior on the part of the actual left-wing liberals who're now disillusioned.
But this many years later, that's not a tenable position. She's not that dumb, at this point she understand who her bedfellows are and what their political program is about, and wholeheartedly assists them at every turn. At this point, the fact that she maintains a veneer of respectability in her own public statements is more cowardice and manipulation and intentional pipeline-creation than it is a sign of a mild position.
If Rowling fully endorses any statement made by these allegedly awful bedfellows, then she's just like them.
If she doesn't, it's not that she is deliberately trying to maintain her own distinct personal stance (and avoid distraction via more extreme rhetoric) while still fighting for a cause (recognizing that adult politics often means coalitions)...it's that she's just a coward hiding her power level?
There seems to be a real "bitch eating crackers" element with JKR where people be waiting for The Thing, the big Transphobia that'd convince everyone to ignore everything she said, and steadily got more aggravated when she wouldn't give it to them. At which point, we got more...scattershot accusations.
Besides, I think maybe we should ask to what degree people are "radicalized" (by refusing to abandon biological sex?) not because Rowling created a pipeline but inherently by this topic or, at least, how TRAs act around it (perhaps because of inherent features of this form of activism which separates it from others).
After all, if JKR was radicalized she didn't go through her own pipeline.
But I've done that a lot and people mostly say 'I'm not going to watch that'.
Luckily, I have no life so I actually did watch one of Contras videos on this topic and the Motte did discuss it
My take was: absolute sophistry. The ridiculous length is more of value to Breadtubers than anyone else, since it'll naturally turn off anyone not interested in the dramatics and meandering musings, and so they can claim no one really wants to know the truth.
This is content for the elect, not newbies. It's actually surprising to me that people legitimately seem to believe that the best way to reach someone asking you for basic evidence of bigotry is a feature-length Contrapoints video. I would say you couldn't make it up but, well...
Tanista
25d ago
I'm struggling to think of counter-examples.
Armie Hammer looks like the jock, cancelled. Gina Carano literally used to beat people up (including Fassbender in one of her early roles), cancelled. The rapper DaBaby is black and a jock (I think - killing people in self-defense and bragging about it seems pretty masculine), also cancelled for homophobia. Johnathan Majors is black, looks like this and was cancelled (though he gives off theater-kid-narcissist energy underneath all that armor)
Likewise, Bill Cosby's blackness has not saved him from having his reputation in shatters. In his case perhaps the most damaging factor is the seemingly callous, premeditated, and repeated nature of the acts.
Insofar as blackness shields you, it's because the mainstream defers judgment to "your" community: Kanye got a pass on things like "slavery was a choice" and the Confederate flag because he was already getting criticism from black people and it was seen as an internal thing (then he crossed state lines). Same with rap's misogyny, despite this making no sense. Allen's community meanwhile is not just white, but likely to be disproportionately turbolib.
Cosby is an interesting example in that there was a simmering resentment towards him for his conservative lecturing and his attempt to act like a grandee to enforce this in the AA entertainment industry. His "pound cake speech" has a whole Wikipedia page. And the things he was saying...well:
But these people, the ones up here in the balcony fought so hard. Looking at the incarcerated, these are not political criminals. These are people going around stealing Coca-Cola. People getting shot in the back of the head over a piece of pound cake! And then we all run out and are outraged, 'The cops shouldn't have shot him.' What the hell was he doing with the pound cake in his hand? I wanted a piece of pound cake just as bad as anybody else, and I looked at it and I had no money. And something called parenting said, 'If you get caught with it you're going to embarrass your mother.' Not 'You're going to get your butt kicked.' No. 'You're going to embarrass your family.'
And:
We are not Africans. Those people are not Africans; they don't know a damned thing about Africa. With names like Shaniqua, Shaligua, Mohammed and all that crap and all of them are in jail.
Can't have made him popular.
It's pretty interesting that the first domino was Hannibal Burress getting frustrated and basically pointing out his allegations due to his behavior towards other black people.
And then we were off to the races.
Tanista
25d ago
I’ll go further; sex is not a private matter even if you don’t let other people see you doing it. It’s a matter of concern to the entire community because it just is
The Christine Blasey Ford thing came up again and all I could think was "if the entire nation is going to have to relitigate decades-old teenage parties filled with drunk kids maybe people should keep a tighter handle on them, cries of tyranny or no". Because clearly it can't help but be everyone's business.
That is a particularly extreme example but still.
Tanista
24d ago
OP does go on to say:
Because without that there's no binary boundary to transit. A woman cannot be a transwoman.
Seems to me the argument is not circular, just compact: without a concrete definition of man and woman, there is nothing to be "trans" in comparison to.
This sort of argument is not new - a common variant is to argue that trans and non-binary are inherently in tension for this reason.
"man and woman are not actually clean natural categories"
The answer to this is that this argument proves too much. If we go by the pre-trans, biology-based definition based on biology and the type of gamete a body is geared towards producing, there are edge cases - but it's the intersex (it's telling how the intersex and language associated with them , "assigned sex at birth" , have been appropriated by trans activists) - but this small minority doesn't render the category meaningless or most biology-based categories - as a start - have to go.
With transpeople being exactly the cross-boundary cases
Going by the biology-based definition it's easy to see how intersex are an edge case (which doesn't vitiate the category). It's much harder to see how transpeople as a class are given that there is no concrete definition - it's not based on dysphoria since some deny that (and lack of comfort with your body doesn't change your sex in any case), not based on intersex-style biological ambiguity since most trans are not intersex, you don't need any brain scans to fit your claimed gender so it's not based on that, you don't need to transition - and then what of women who're non-conforming? Where do they fall? It's similar to the "Trans-Inclusion Problem" and "woman":
Every proposal so far has failed to draw the boundaries of womanhood in a way acceptable to the Ameliorative Inquirists, since not all those who identify as women count as women on these proposals, and some who count as women on these proposals don’t identify as women.
You complain about the inherent fuzziness of the biology-based definition of "man" and "woman" but you run a worse issue with "transpeople". You cannot say "transpeople are the edge case" when defining trans in the first place in a concrete way is a problem.
Oh, wow, look: we've basically circled back to OP's original complaint. Like I said: compact not circular.
"Black" is a statistical concept that emerges at the population level as an amalgamation of traits and individuals. The race doesn't make the people, the people make the race...HBD is not a unique cataclysmic injustice; rather it is just one more square in the patchwork of immiseration that is mankind's natural state.
I think these are the sorts of things Westerners say because they have an atypically low focus on group honor. No man is an island, we all have a tribe and that tribe and its success matters.
"Someone died of cholera" is very different from "my tribe is, essentially, fucked for the foreseeable future" and this difference matters. Both in that the first affects individuals and that we can easily see it being otherwise. We know how to vaccinate groups, we don't know how to raise IQ.
All of this Coleman Hughes "focus on individuals" stuff is essentially an ameliorative tactic to save individualism and group agnosticism, but that only makes sense if groups are the broadly same. As the dissident right joke goes: "individualism and freedom for all (* obviously for 130 IQ Anglos)". On this view, "equality" and not caring about groups works because they just assumed power would be limited to those capable of handling it. And then everyone forgot range restriction and became optimists.
Once we actually accept that blacks can't be "130 IQ Anglos" all sorts of group judgments can flow from this that should concern any individual. For example: I'm African (my post history goes back so I can't be accused of being a troll - and you can probably find me on reddit with minimal effort too tbh). There's a legitimate argument against the immigration that changed my life measurably based on HBD grounds. That argument has historically worked against me (which is why Western nations mainly took white people and didn't even consider African migration) and may again, if people come to believe it again.
Am I supposed to go "well, as an individual, this is not my concern"? Are my opponents supposed to say "oh, okay then"? I cannot escape my race except under the very system HBD destroys.
because "push all the races apart and create bantustans for the inferior ones" is morally repugnant
It's morally repugnant socially (I can't speak on the roots of your personal belief) because we believe that the bantustans are the outcome of white neglect and oppression (even if we place the blame far back in the past or through some dubious logic : e.g. "white flight" where white people just ruin neighborhoods by...leaving)
If tomorrow we just accepted that Black neighborhoods aren't bad because white people took the secret suburb sauce but because low-IQ blacks (disproportionately large group compared to other races) ruin them in a variety of ways then the entire situation changes.
Even if white people were not inclined to abandon blacks, it would be a totally different relationship - certainly there'll be less apologizing for enforcing the law. And things like desegregation and white flight can now be reframed - white people were simply trying to escape the predictable consequences (violence, destruction of legitimately earned wealth) and so on.
White people are then victims, and the fact that the entire federal apparatus is causing excess deaths and loss of opportunity for white people for simply being genetically lucky is what's morally repugnant.
This is exactly the argument the DR makes.
It's just so unfair. It fills me with anger and sadness and rage and I can't stop thinking about it.
This is where already being a depressive is useful: I've become depressed about much less substantial things, so I simply told myself that this was just my latest excuse.
I'm still depressed, but I don't have this totem in my head I can blame. Tomorrow I may not be depressed, regardless of how we do on Raven's Progressive Matrices tests.
If the worst version of HBD is true (I believe some version is but am agnostic about how unfixable some problems are), if the "crazy" Lynn numbers that even some DR folks seem to be squeamish about are accurate...fuck it.
In a sense, nothing "changed". We all knew growing up that Africa had a disproportionate share of failed states, as kids we believed Asians were better at math and like the two Asians we knew were and I honestly think the older, less educated generation believed in HBD and would just nod along here.
If anything, all it means is that I don't have to spend time reading the huge "it's not HBD it's..." corpus or feeling like I have to do something about it (my father is still fighting the good fight and laments that his constant complaints* have made his children cynical about joining him and trying to help the old country). Just move on and live the best life you can. Even if it was malleable, I'd probably have a minimal-at-best role in changing fate anyway. If it isn't...why the consternation?
If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink. Not because it doesn't matter and we can all be individuals. But because there's nothing else.
* One of his confessions was he felt embarrassed because he goes to the Westerners and asks them to take African agency more seriously, meanwhile even basics don't seem to be done and I quote "our economy doesn't amount to a hill of beans".
Tanista
24d ago
If you take migration to be about short-term goals like getting engineers, sure. If populations have different mean IQs and will trend towards them then no? Yes, your Nigerian quantum physicist is going to work great, what's going to happen in three generations? Especially given they might (almost certainly, in some countries like the US) assimilate into the existing non-migrant population of the same race...
That is the killer.
In any case, it doesn't need to follow in some absolute way. Historically what happened when the majority of Westerners had these beliefs is clear. That alone makes being concerned rational, and that alone makes the "focus on the individual" refrain unconvincing. People are not failing to understand individualism as the Harrisian-Hughesian argument goes. It's not confusion, it's experience.
Tanista
24d ago
I don't think it's going to be good (because many normal people have their own spiteful ideas) but if we ever hit this hypothetical (re)acceptance of this theory, it won't be DR Twitter accounts running the show.
YMMV by region I suppose.
Tanista
24d ago
As for immigration, I'd say "regardless of any arguments about regression to the mean, nobody in the West is giving race-based preferential immigration to Asians. If they're not going to do that, then they don't have the excuse 'we don't want smart black people to immigrate because regression to the mean'."
Can I translate this as "in an anti-HBD West, people don't cite arguments specific to HBD in their immigration policy"?
However, as the tomboys and the androgynous and crossdressers already sufficiently demonstrate, some traits of the category have more separational power than others.
Under the biology-based definition, this is meaningless. Taking from societies I know: a girl doesn't get out of wearing a hijab after puberty because her sports-playing makes her more of a boy than a girl.
I would not look at genetics first if I wanted to demonstrate definitional issues of gender. And showing that the category is broken in some cases even on genetic grounds strengthens, not weakens, my case.
Not really. Because the gender ideology is hiding the ball here: they created this dualist version of "gender" stripped from sex, and then take every deviation (which is inevitable once you remove the backstop) as proof of their thesis.
Many traditional views and the biology-based view simply don't run into the most excruciating version of this problem that gender ideologues insist problematizes the categories enough to justify their radical changes. "Woman" is both a sex and gendered term, both normative and descriptive, and the sex element is the sina qua non under this view. A woman can act unladylike, but she's still a woman due to her biology. You remove this and then it's much easier (intuitively) to argue that woman is arbitrary or infinitely extensible.
But it is a rewriting of history to act like this is the universal definition. It is, in fact, very contentious. They created the problem by first assuming that gender is totally distinct from sex and then solve it with an even more imperfect definition than the one we have.
In any case, I think we've already agreed that edge cases don't defeat a category - especially if no superior alternative has been put forward. On that point:
This is only a problem for non-exclusive leftist politics though. I'm entirely willing to accept that there are people who claim that they are trans but aren't, "in fact", trans under any meaningfully objective definition.
And what is this meaningful definition?
I have given you my definition of "woman" and we've plumbed the benefits and downsides. Seems to me that we have to first define "trans" before we can actually settle whether this is a more coherent position than the activist status quo?
But none of this invalidates the point that you can't argue for group membership on the circular basis of a criterion.
I don't see the circularity. And, at the risk of repeating myself, a significant part of the debate on maintaining traditional and biology-based definitions is that they are simply superior to the alternative , they carve reality better at the joints and focus on what we care about (which is why there's so much trouble now in so many domains when it's abandoned)
So, until we actually define "trans" are we really having a fair fight?
Has the Hispanic voting bloc raised a stink, honestly?
More options
Context Copy link