"sex is immutable and assigned at birth" i just honestly don't understand what this debate is about.
If by sex we mean the physical sexual organs, duh yeah they are assigned at birth. We may be able to surgically alter them (very imperfectly for now, maybe perfectly one day) but need for alteration clearly means there is an initial state.
If by sex we mean what happens in the brain, mating preferences, sense of identity etc. duh yeah of course anything goes. The range of what people believe about themselves is almost infinite, from thinking they are Christ reincarnate to being the spawn of aliens to whatever else you can imagine. Believing whether one is of one sex or another or neither is a really mild case by comparison with some of these other beliefs. Physical reality and social mores may nudge majority of people into one direction, but that doesn't mean that a host of other possibilities can't co-exist. Are these beliefs "correct"? As long as they aren't a danger to others / society (which sexual beliefs largely aren't, although some exceptions maybe exist e.g. encouraging young children to transition) and if that makes the people involved happier I don't give a toss.
It means they believe there are two biological sexes: male and female, each with different chromosomes and different sexual organs. (And different evolutionary biological physiological components/drives etc.) Sex is fixed, as anyone with a brain grasps axiomatically. Gender—how any individual identifies themselves—is 100% open. The woke lefty trans activists used to stick with gender…but now they’re trying to claim that biological sex itself is up for grabs.
I really enjoyed reading the comments below. Agree especially with Sherman Alexie's point about Native Americans and their representation in politics. I grew up in a conservative, Christian family and while they voted democrat, they were anything but progressive. Run down the list on abortion, trans rights, gay rights, climate change, etc. If there were a blind vote on the issues alone the outcome would be very different.
Heterodoxy of thought and representation is a good thing. Unfortunately, the calcification of the parties through gerrymandering and the insanity that is the national media prevents an actual exchange of ideas from taking place.
Living in a country where a coalition of several parties must be formed to reach a parliamentary majority means compromise is required and that taking voters for granted isn't really possible since at any election the largest party ends up screwed. Or, like what happened in our most recent election, an upstart party swept the board.
I'm a strong believer that everyone should discuss all their interests, and I confess, as someone who's spent the better part of 20 years classically educated/involved in the Fine Arts in American University, the small voice of censorship speaks inside my brain, for better or worse.
For example, my mind is telling me white guys discussing black experience is "part of the problem". My rational-self recognizes that I have only two choices, to participate or not to participate. And while it is a weak rhetorical position to reduce arguments to binaries, in this case, a binary serves to stage the process. I choose to participate.
In choosing to participate, I have to consume arguments for and against the subject at hand, and to consume, I must respond. Speaking/writing (aka responding) functions like taste buds to the tongue. Eating is not simply taking in nutrients. It is the response of tasting, feeling texture, sensing temperature, and even considering weight.
I want to be the kind of person who deeply understands the plight of black Americans, and in being that person, I need to be free to discuss, to be wrong, to be corrected, to be right, to be heard. Without being punished if my first instinct is wrong or even offensive. If I don't get that opportunity, how can I grow?
So this is all a really long prologue to say in the case of PEW, I want to know who among the black population is responding. Does PEW consider prison inmates? Do they limit their polls to those who answer landline phone calls? Because context matters to those percentages. For example, I'm shocked how low the percent of black respondents want the Democratic party to compromise more with Republicans.
One generalization that I have seen reinforced in my life, and that scientific studies have also reinforced, points to the obstinacy of age. As we grow older, we become less flexible, and as we become less flexible there is less room for alternative solutions to the ones we've always believed. So the age of those polled would greatly impact the way that question was answered.
At any rate, loved that you brought this topic to the fore, and accept my apology for the rambling. If I had more time, I'd have written a much shorter response.
Ha! Nice. Thanks for the comment. I get it. I used to have a similar view around ‘because I’m *blank* can I comment on *blank*? But over time I came to realize that’s a bad way to think about/frame it. Taken to its extreme, only white men can comment on other white men; only black women on black women; only trans men on other trans men; only lesbians on other lesbians; etc. You can see how this gets us into a very weird and unhelpful place. It reminds me of this idea of ‘cultural appropriation.’ Same idea: you follow it to its logical end and we can all only write autobiography. In my view we can all say and think and have opinions on whatever we want. Men know more about women in some ways than women do about themselves, and ditto the opposite as well, of course; men will never know what it’s like to be women, women will never know what it’s like to be men. Ditto race, etc. But we all have much more in common than apart when you really break it all down. I say let’s criticize ourselves and each other abs get honest!
I think the gay rights movement is also being hijacked in a similar manner by the far left. I'm a gay guy who used to consider myself an ally for transexual people, but these days I imagine many would classify me as a transphobe.
I considered myself an ally because I believed (and still believe) that some people experience profound gender dysphoria and take steps to relieve that pain through medical procedures, fashion choices, etc. My heart went out to those people and I wished them every happiness. I was happy to call such a person he or she, whichever they preferred.
By my own definition, I'm still an ally to transexual people but what I believed is no longer good enough. Now I'm required to sign on to the idea that genders don't exist except as they are individually imagined and "identified" with. I'm required to believe that there is no such thing as a boy or a girl, a man or a woman -- at least not anatomically speaking. I'm required to use language that's neutral and degendered, required to identify myself by my preferred pronouns. As a gay man, some would go so far as to say I'm required to be open to dating transmen. It's too much.
I'm told that legislation being proposed in some states to limit the medical transitioning of minors is anti-LGBT. Is it though? There are many things I love about being a gay men, but my sexual preference hasn't endowed me with any special medical knowledge. I have no idea whether performing potentially irreversible medical procedures on trans-identifying minors is a good idea. How would I know such a thing without deciphering a great deal of medical research I'm not trained to decipher? The idea that I should automatically have an opinion on a medically cloudy issue like this is absurd.
Can we please go back to the day when gay rights was about being free to love (or just have sex with) any consenting adult who would have me? The rest of it is outside my wheelhouse.
Agreed! Almost everything that someone else who is not my intimate partner believes is outside my wheelhouse! When did we start dictating what other people have to believe? I've worked with Americans from all religious backgrounds and races. They don't have to "approve" of my lifestyle or orientation, and vice versa, for us to be friendly colleagues and respect each other as fellow Americans! That's literally the whole point of this country: freedom of conscience. These brainwashed cultural revolutionaries who dictate what others must believe are threat to our democracy. Enough.
Alot of great points here and the data backup is very helpful and encouraging. It says to me that black Americans are starting to see they are being used as pawns by liberal whites & especially the Media. I have a friend who is a high ranking sf police officer. After the Memphis police killed Tyre Nichols the police chief of Detroit reached out to her asking about what was being planned for riot control. Well we all know city riots never materialized. At our local dive bar she said to our group "nobody gives a shit about black people". (My friend is black). All I could do was say you're right and I'm sorry. The hypocrisy of the left is staggering. White liberals need to confront their own biases.
Amen. You speak the truth. The best word I can think of for the left right now as relates to identity is paternalism, this idea that black people are helpless pawns who can only change by white liberals fixing their problems. Also, if you have time listen to/watch this. Incredible: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fm-O3QStRI0
I think the Dems won't change. Their behavior - including that of Biden - suggests they take Black people's votes completely for granted. The "we're the party of diversity" (diversity of course meaning non-White) image is so successful it has intoxicated the Dems.
This phenomenon is also present in the Native American world. Public facing Indians are overwhelmingly of the left and far left so that gives the false impression that leftism is the default mode. It's not.
I always think that no political party represents our full beliefs and that we often pick the least worst option. The messaging of the Republicans has not often seemed very welcoming to some racial groups. This has really hurt them with groups of people who are probably very sympathetic to the Republican emphasis on tradition, small government, "law & order", family and religion but shy away from the alienating, hostile or even overtly racist posturing and legislation the party has produced. With the Democrats embracing identity politics and Republicans embracing Trumpism, the least worst is hard to figure out sometimes.
Good question! When I wrote that I was thinking of some rhetoric by politicians that expressed racial animus. The “Muslim Travel ban” felt racially targeted but wasn’t explicitly so.but that was the sort of thing I was thinking of.
Beautifully stated. Totally agree. Republicans have a huge opportunity with working class non-white voters right now…but like you said republicans don’t seem poised to handle that well at the moment. I myself identify as a free-thinking centrist Dem; I wish Dems would distance themselves more from ID politics.
"sex is immutable and assigned at birth" i just honestly don't understand what this debate is about.
If by sex we mean the physical sexual organs, duh yeah they are assigned at birth. We may be able to surgically alter them (very imperfectly for now, maybe perfectly one day) but need for alteration clearly means there is an initial state.
If by sex we mean what happens in the brain, mating preferences, sense of identity etc. duh yeah of course anything goes. The range of what people believe about themselves is almost infinite, from thinking they are Christ reincarnate to being the spawn of aliens to whatever else you can imagine. Believing whether one is of one sex or another or neither is a really mild case by comparison with some of these other beliefs. Physical reality and social mores may nudge majority of people into one direction, but that doesn't mean that a host of other possibilities can't co-exist. Are these beliefs "correct"? As long as they aren't a danger to others / society (which sexual beliefs largely aren't, although some exceptions maybe exist e.g. encouraging young children to transition) and if that makes the people involved happier I don't give a toss.
It means they believe there are two biological sexes: male and female, each with different chromosomes and different sexual organs. (And different evolutionary biological physiological components/drives etc.) Sex is fixed, as anyone with a brain grasps axiomatically. Gender—how any individual identifies themselves—is 100% open. The woke lefty trans activists used to stick with gender…but now they’re trying to claim that biological sex itself is up for grabs.
Well done. 👏
I really enjoyed reading the comments below. Agree especially with Sherman Alexie's point about Native Americans and their representation in politics. I grew up in a conservative, Christian family and while they voted democrat, they were anything but progressive. Run down the list on abortion, trans rights, gay rights, climate change, etc. If there were a blind vote on the issues alone the outcome would be very different.
Heterodoxy of thought and representation is a good thing. Unfortunately, the calcification of the parties through gerrymandering and the insanity that is the national media prevents an actual exchange of ideas from taking place.
Living in a country where a coalition of several parties must be formed to reach a parliamentary majority means compromise is required and that taking voters for granted isn't really possible since at any election the largest party ends up screwed. Or, like what happened in our most recent election, an upstart party swept the board.
Beautifully said!! I love this!!
Ruy Texiera has been say the same thing for awile now.
I'm a strong believer that everyone should discuss all their interests, and I confess, as someone who's spent the better part of 20 years classically educated/involved in the Fine Arts in American University, the small voice of censorship speaks inside my brain, for better or worse.
For example, my mind is telling me white guys discussing black experience is "part of the problem". My rational-self recognizes that I have only two choices, to participate or not to participate. And while it is a weak rhetorical position to reduce arguments to binaries, in this case, a binary serves to stage the process. I choose to participate.
In choosing to participate, I have to consume arguments for and against the subject at hand, and to consume, I must respond. Speaking/writing (aka responding) functions like taste buds to the tongue. Eating is not simply taking in nutrients. It is the response of tasting, feeling texture, sensing temperature, and even considering weight.
I want to be the kind of person who deeply understands the plight of black Americans, and in being that person, I need to be free to discuss, to be wrong, to be corrected, to be right, to be heard. Without being punished if my first instinct is wrong or even offensive. If I don't get that opportunity, how can I grow?
So this is all a really long prologue to say in the case of PEW, I want to know who among the black population is responding. Does PEW consider prison inmates? Do they limit their polls to those who answer landline phone calls? Because context matters to those percentages. For example, I'm shocked how low the percent of black respondents want the Democratic party to compromise more with Republicans.
One generalization that I have seen reinforced in my life, and that scientific studies have also reinforced, points to the obstinacy of age. As we grow older, we become less flexible, and as we become less flexible there is less room for alternative solutions to the ones we've always believed. So the age of those polled would greatly impact the way that question was answered.
At any rate, loved that you brought this topic to the fore, and accept my apology for the rambling. If I had more time, I'd have written a much shorter response.
Ha! Nice. Thanks for the comment. I get it. I used to have a similar view around ‘because I’m *blank* can I comment on *blank*? But over time I came to realize that’s a bad way to think about/frame it. Taken to its extreme, only white men can comment on other white men; only black women on black women; only trans men on other trans men; only lesbians on other lesbians; etc. You can see how this gets us into a very weird and unhelpful place. It reminds me of this idea of ‘cultural appropriation.’ Same idea: you follow it to its logical end and we can all only write autobiography. In my view we can all say and think and have opinions on whatever we want. Men know more about women in some ways than women do about themselves, and ditto the opposite as well, of course; men will never know what it’s like to be women, women will never know what it’s like to be men. Ditto race, etc. But we all have much more in common than apart when you really break it all down. I say let’s criticize ourselves and each other abs get honest!
Yes. Well put. I hope our society gets over the red flag and cancel culture surrounding conversations.
I think the gay rights movement is also being hijacked in a similar manner by the far left. I'm a gay guy who used to consider myself an ally for transexual people, but these days I imagine many would classify me as a transphobe.
I considered myself an ally because I believed (and still believe) that some people experience profound gender dysphoria and take steps to relieve that pain through medical procedures, fashion choices, etc. My heart went out to those people and I wished them every happiness. I was happy to call such a person he or she, whichever they preferred.
By my own definition, I'm still an ally to transexual people but what I believed is no longer good enough. Now I'm required to sign on to the idea that genders don't exist except as they are individually imagined and "identified" with. I'm required to believe that there is no such thing as a boy or a girl, a man or a woman -- at least not anatomically speaking. I'm required to use language that's neutral and degendered, required to identify myself by my preferred pronouns. As a gay man, some would go so far as to say I'm required to be open to dating transmen. It's too much.
I'm told that legislation being proposed in some states to limit the medical transitioning of minors is anti-LGBT. Is it though? There are many things I love about being a gay men, but my sexual preference hasn't endowed me with any special medical knowledge. I have no idea whether performing potentially irreversible medical procedures on trans-identifying minors is a good idea. How would I know such a thing without deciphering a great deal of medical research I'm not trained to decipher? The idea that I should automatically have an opinion on a medically cloudy issue like this is absurd.
Can we please go back to the day when gay rights was about being free to love (or just have sex with) any consenting adult who would have me? The rest of it is outside my wheelhouse.
Agreed! Almost everything that someone else who is not my intimate partner believes is outside my wheelhouse! When did we start dictating what other people have to believe? I've worked with Americans from all religious backgrounds and races. They don't have to "approve" of my lifestyle or orientation, and vice versa, for us to be friendly colleagues and respect each other as fellow Americans! That's literally the whole point of this country: freedom of conscience. These brainwashed cultural revolutionaries who dictate what others must believe are threat to our democracy. Enough.
Wonderfully said. Agree.
Yes. I have a few close gay friends and they’ve expressed similar feelings. Makes sense to me.
Alot of great points here and the data backup is very helpful and encouraging. It says to me that black Americans are starting to see they are being used as pawns by liberal whites & especially the Media. I have a friend who is a high ranking sf police officer. After the Memphis police killed Tyre Nichols the police chief of Detroit reached out to her asking about what was being planned for riot control. Well we all know city riots never materialized. At our local dive bar she said to our group "nobody gives a shit about black people". (My friend is black). All I could do was say you're right and I'm sorry. The hypocrisy of the left is staggering. White liberals need to confront their own biases.
Amen. You speak the truth. The best word I can think of for the left right now as relates to identity is paternalism, this idea that black people are helpless pawns who can only change by white liberals fixing their problems. Also, if you have time listen to/watch this. Incredible: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fm-O3QStRI0
They should check out Marianne Williamson then bet they will love what she has to say!
I think the Dems won't change. Their behavior - including that of Biden - suggests they take Black people's votes completely for granted. The "we're the party of diversity" (diversity of course meaning non-White) image is so successful it has intoxicated the Dems.
This phenomenon is also present in the Native American world. Public facing Indians are overwhelmingly of the left and far left so that gives the false impression that leftism is the default mode. It's not.
Would you ever consider doing a guest post?
Sure. Give me a topic sometime.
Sherman: Can you email me and we can discuss topics?
Yes
michw.mohr@gmail.com
Great!! Let me think on that :)
Cool idea, the guest hosting thing seems like an interesting idea. Does it happen often on substack? I'm new to the scene.
Yes. Good point. I think you wrote about this on your Stack a while back. Very interesting!
Yes, and I'm working on a larger piece about this phenomenon.
Ohhhh look forward to that!!
Always exciting to read your writing---on anything---but I look forward to this!
Thanks!
Agree!
Thanks!
Thank you for curating the research data for us. The opinions reflect lived experience.
Black America is much more right-wing and pro police than the Democrat Party. It's interesting how that doesn't show up in voting though.
I always think that no political party represents our full beliefs and that we often pick the least worst option. The messaging of the Republicans has not often seemed very welcoming to some racial groups. This has really hurt them with groups of people who are probably very sympathetic to the Republican emphasis on tradition, small government, "law & order", family and religion but shy away from the alienating, hostile or even overtly racist posturing and legislation the party has produced. With the Democrats embracing identity politics and Republicans embracing Trumpism, the least worst is hard to figure out sometimes.
Can you explain the racist policies that the republican party has enacted.
Good question! When I wrote that I was thinking of some rhetoric by politicians that expressed racial animus. The “Muslim Travel ban” felt racially targeted but wasn’t explicitly so.but that was the sort of thing I was thinking of.
I just thought I'd missed something that had passed lately. I've been busy getting my seeds planted so they're ready for the garden.
Beautifully stated. Totally agree. Republicans have a huge opportunity with working class non-white voters right now…but like you said republicans don’t seem poised to handle that well at the moment. I myself identify as a free-thinking centrist Dem; I wish Dems would distance themselves more from ID politics.
Really important info. Thank you for sharing!