This is a kind of intellectually dishonest rhetoric that I see a lot. I'm not sure if there's a name for it, but it basically involves using words and definitions to put certain intuitions in people's heads that the basic facts of the situation wouldn't. For instance, you might have a word like "genocide," for which people have some very extreme ideas in their heads. And people have tried to write down some definitions and criteria to capture these mental concepts referred to by "genocide." But then minimal satisfaction of the written criteria, often in a roundabout way, is used by people to argue that something is genocide, even though the actual reality of the situation doesn't match people's intuitions about what genocide means. But because those intuitions exist, people end up thinking the situation is much worse than it really is simply because someone convinced them that something technically meets the written criteria for genocide. You can make a case that certain trans legislation technically meets the criteria for genocide, but that doesn't really tell you anything because the intuitions you'll get from that will be wrong. As you pointed, the right does this for words like invasion. It's really quite a dishonest trick and people should stop doing it.
I think Scott beat you to it! This sounds a lot like his noncentral fallacy:
> If he can unilaterally declare a Worst Argument, then so can I. I declare the Worst Argument In The World to be this: "X is in a category whose archetypal member gives us a certain emotional reaction. Therefore, we should apply that emotional reaction to X, even though it is not a central category member."
A bit rare is when people attempt to downplay something by saying it doesn't match the dictionary definition, even though it matches the intuitions in a lot of ways.
It works in that it helps convince people that something is worse than it actually is but if you're arguing against a person who can recognize this trick, it's pretty easy for them to discredit.
I feel like when people talk about denying trans people’s right to exist, they are talking about that persons right to exist *in so far as* they are a trans person. If being trans is an incredibly integral part of someone existence, and a legislative body renders living out that experience illegal, they are denying that person their right to exist (as a trans person). That implicit ‘as a trans person’ is really important though because of how inextricably linked it is to the individuals identity.
As an analogy a government might make it illegal to read or practice philosophy, and people might say they are denying the right to exist of philosophers. Likewise there is an implicit ‘as philosophers’ there, but supposing many philosophers are so connected to philosophy that it is an integral part of their identity, it seems like omitting that appended phrase isn’t actually that crazy.
I’m not sure that it is being rendered illegal to identity as the opposite sex anywhere in the western world though? Let’s stick to US. The Supreme Court has upheld inclusion of trans identification in anti-discrimination law. How is being trans made to be illegal? Are people going to jail for being trans ?
I agree its not being made illegal merely to identify as trans. But there might be component to living out life as a trans person that are rendered illegal making it more difficult to live out that life as completely, and thus undermining ones ability to exist in that way. The ability to use the bathroom of your corresponding gender might be one example. Returning the the philosopher analogy, the government might not make "being a philosopher" illegal, but they might ban and destroy all the philosophy books, and public discussion of philosophy. Thats an extreme analogy of course, but they are likewise undermining the ability to exist as a philosopher through those policies.
Yes access to sex-based spaces and organizations certainly seems to be the rub. A few observations, in Thailand, lady boys use the men’s room with little suicidality as a result. They simply recognize that sex and gender are not the same and bathroom assignment is based on the former. Alternatively, all gender bathrooms and family / single use bathrooms seem to be an arrangement that works and is being widely used. Most corporate chains (target, for example) as well as airports have this accommodation.
I don’t think most people have a problem with transitioned trans women using the women’s bathroom, and the North Carolina bill that forced otherwise was quickly reversed amidst a public backlash. Just a few years ago! What changed? Well, I think the insistence that self identification alone is sufficient to gain access to these spaces. (The gender fluid crowd that insists they can change gender on a daily basis didn’t help).
So I feel as if the impasse is due to overreach on the trans lobby’s part, and if we could return to a simpler time where transitioned women are treated different than merely those who identify as women, we’d find it easier to resolve these issues.
Define “virtually no one”? Also, if some distortion from literal truth is allowed, why is the distortion you complain about qualitatively less justifiable than this one?
I also think it’s somewhat different when you describe a concrete action. It’s one thing to somewhat exaggerate over something no one actually does. It’s another thing to say that when the conduct actually happens.
For example, “no one wants to privatize all welfare” may be fine if that’s completely politically impossible. But if New Jersey actually did that tomorrow, the statement would be clearly inaccurate even if it’s a highly localized New Jersey impulse.
If the state of New Jersey decided to privatize all welfare then yes, it would not be the case that virtually no one wants to privatize all welfare.
In 2023 the nonprofit Everytown for Gun Safety counted 35 transgender people murdered in the US. Note that's not 35 transgender people murdered because they were trans, that's just all the transgender people that were murdered regardless of reason. According to the CDC, in 2023 there were 22,830 murders altogether. In 2023 there were 258 million adults living in the US. That means that at most .009% of the adult population want to kill people enough (enough to actually do it, anyway) and only .15% of those people want to kill transgender people. So yeah, I'd say virtually no one does.
I would rescue the original wording not by adding “virtually,” but by noting that the colloquial use of “no one” actually means “no one on my side of the specific and live policy debate that I’m currently jumping into and to which the hysterical activists are responding” or “no one in this particular instance or any adjacent and relevant one.”
It’s “Calm down, Johnny, no one’s trying to take away your toys forever. Daddy just needs to clean them.” Even while the neighbor child might actually be scheming to do just that.
The point is that the people opposing self-identification for bathrooms and sports and legal IDs are not also advocating for killing. It’s not part of the platform by any stretch. Rather, it’s just a totally irrelevant fact that some people may want to kill trans people (or me!), which means that trans activists are, indeed, incorrect when they accuse gender critical activists of being engaged in a pro-genocide project to literally kill trans people.
>Less perniciously but more commonly, the dominant view among those on the left seems to be that a man is simply one who calls themself a man. This is an absolutely terrible definition! It’s flagrantly circular because it uses the term it’s defining; a bit like claiming that a Glosh is whatever has Gloshy properties. What are they identifying as? Surely they’re not merely identifying as one who calls themself a man. For then they’d identify as one who calls themself a man, and one who calls themself one who calls themself a man, and so on ad infinitum, without the term man having any deeper meaning. But normally for one to call oneself a thing, they have some deeper idea of what the thing is!<
I agree that this is a bad definition, but it is not circular, let alone flagrantly so. You are making a use-mention error here. The definition doesn't _use_ the term "man" (which would be circular), but mentions it. Here is a circular definition: A "man" is someone who is a man. In this definition "man" is used and so the definition is circular.
But that is not what is claimed by the hypothetical leftist here. They are claiming: A "man" is one who calls themself a 'man'. Here we can criticize this definition for placing the bar for "man" too low, or as not accurately the concept people are using, etc., but they have a definition that distinguishes between people on a discernible basis (many people have never called themselves a "man."
What you are emphasizing here is that this understanding of "man" makes it an empty concept. That is correct as a criticism. The person who calls himself a man has some richer concept of what "man" means than merely "I am a person who calls himself a 'man.' " That richer concept is being ignored by the left when they offer this definition.
There are two problems here. The first has to do with the left's often confused understanding of what it means for something to be socially constructed. They view gender (and hence "man") as a completely socially constructed category. They then adopt the right's implicit understanding of "socially constructed" as meaning "made-up" or "completely up to the individual." This is obviously false. Currency is socially constructed, but I cannot just decide that I am a billionaire. Similar constraints could obtain for gender categories even if it is 100% socially constructed.
The second issue has to do with the left's political coalition. They actually do realize that the above definition is inadequate, but they are willing to argue for it because they think it is co-extensive with a more accurate definition. They will focus on this extensive rather than intensive definition because of the internal contradiction in their view between the view that gender is socially constructed (important to feminism) and that people have some kind of true gender identity (important to trans activists). An empty definition like this allows them to punt on this issue.
I think it's at least reasonable to claim that conservatives supporting eg. gay panic defense laws want to kill trans people, since legalizing that act is the point of those laws! You could also say that conversion therapy - which increases their suicide rates a lot - is tantamount to trying to kill them (or at least some kind of lesser manslaughter), since it predictably and consistently leads to lots of trans people dying.
Do you have any peer reviewed research that shows that trans conversion therapy increases risk of suicide to an extent that would lead to the outcome you suppose here? This is more hyperbole.
Thank you for this link. This study is low quality (retrospective, self reported), and found only one significant outcome of many tested (and even that is 1.2% - 1.96%, not exactly earth shattering result).
Suffice to say this does not make the practice tantamount to murder, or genocide. That said, I do not approve of the practice for other reasons that do not require hyperbole.
I made a top level comment on this post that handwaving threat to trans safety is not that way to go. Yes it's bad strategy to push all trans antis further into the far right but I mean that as bad strategy, I don't mean there's no threat.
Yes I think I the hyperbole really is counter-productive but does appear conversion therapy is unproductive and unethical, even if it isn’t literally genocide. Thanks for having a space to have a conversation without the vitriol. Substack seems to be only place left where this happens.
If I support stronger stand-your ground laws or reinstating the death penalty, does that mean that I “want to kill“ men/young adults/black people/the poor/Southerners/any other group that’s statistically more likely to commit violent crime?
Similarly, while trans people are surely more likely to do the sort of things countenanced by the “gay panic” defense, the great majority don’t, and not all people who do are trans.
My only qualm with the activist nonsense is that people that aren’t trans have been treated with gender medicine. I think that anyone should find that concerning, but it shouldn’t radicalize their politics to a degree that one makes an appearance on Fox!
If by "gender medicine" you mean hormone replacement therapy and puberty blockers— most people who receive these treatments aren't trans because these treatments were developed first and foremost for non-trans patients— post-menopausal women, men with testosterone deficiency, children with precocious puberty etc.
>The Bailey is that Republicans deny one can change their gender. The Motte is that they want to murder trans people.
You got this backwards. The Motte is the defensible idea, which in this case is that Republicans deny one can change their gender. The Bailey is the productive idea that you want to use that isn’t very defensible, which is that Republicans want to murder trans people. Activists can say Republicans “deny trans peoples right to exist” with the goal of people hearing the Bailey, and when pressed they can claim that they only meant the Motte.
I agree with much of what you wrote here. I have a number of issues with the trans community, one of the biggest being what I perceive as a lack of patience—or perhaps an unwillingness to tolerate ignorance. In my personal experiences and from what I’ve observed, many trans individuals react harshly, even aggressively, to people who are simply uninformed or trying to understand. The way some of them carry themselves—with absolute certainty and moral superiority—can be downright unsettling. At times, it honestly reminds me of witch hunts: a rigid, unquestionable belief system that punishes dissent or even curiosity.
Another major issue is the apparent unwillingness to acknowledge deeper psychological, social, or cultural factors underlying gender dysphoria and transition. There's an dogmatic refusal to explore or even allow alternative explanations or nuanced discussions—everything must affirm, or it's labeled hateful.
And frankly, no offense—but there is a sense of absurdity when you step back and look at the bigger picture. We’re facing massive, tangible problems: economic inequality, climate change, the obesity epidemic, malaria, and other preventable diseases that kill millions every year. Against that backdrop, watching well-educated people in powerful institutions get worked up over pronouns, bathroom access, or demanding universal affirmation of someone's gender identity can feel surreal—sometimes even comically out of touch with reality.
I’m not saying trans people don’t face real struggles. They do. But the level of urgency and moral weight assigned to their cause, especially in elite spaces, seems wildly disproportionate to the actual impact or scope of the issue when compared to other global crises. And yes, I realize saying this may offend some—but offense alone isn’t a rebuttal.
There’s more to say, and I know I’m not expressing all of it. But I think this general discomfort and sense of disconnect is something many people feel, even if they’re afraid to say it out loud.
My advice to men who think they are women. If you think that, there are a few things that you need to understand. First of all is that you are still a man because you can't change your biological sex. It's okay to dress any way you wish and to adopt any superficial, stereotypical attributes of women that you desire. Live your life. No one should care, I certainly don't.
However, because women are entitled to be treated fairly and to enjoy privacy from men there are certain things that are prohibited to you and me because we are men. You can't compete against women in most sports because it would be unfair. You can't go into women's private places like restrooms and locker rooms because that would make them feel unsafe. Finally, if you are a criminal you certainly can't be imprisoned with women.
That's it, just like me.
BTW, being men in America we are considered by many to be among the most privileged individuals in the world. Enjoy your status.
Yes/No: would these restrictions apply to a boy who was brought up, for some reason, as a girl his entire life, socialised as a girl his entire life, had feminine mannerisms, fashion, etc, maybe even was given Estrogen or puberty blockers, and then chose to continue living as a woman?
It seems that your original proclamation has been watered down quite a bit. From "biological sex" to "both gone through puberty and still have male genitalia".
Of course, I could object on two fronts, which is that A) does having a dick really stop a man who thinks he's a woman from being "dangerous" and B) looking at any number of completely passing, socially feminine trans women and expecting them to be in male spaces would be even more absurd.
kcat: Why absurd? The argument that having men in women’s spaces is no threat to women should equally mean that having women appearing men in men’s spaces is not a threat to men. I certainly wouldn’t object to them being in a men’s restroom. Would you?
Arguably what is at stake is people’s right to define themselves, rather than being defined externally. In that light, the flimsiness of the definition “a man is anyone who defines themselves as a man” is a feature, not a bug, because it allows people to affiliate without necessarily sharing a strict definition. Whether this is worth the ambiguity is up for debate, of course — from a purist perspective, it’s intellectually lazy. On the other hand, control of the prevalent definition often becomes political control over the group it represents; I can gate-keep and enforce ideological purity by dictating who qualifies as a “real man,” or a “real American,” or a “true Christian,” etc. So the decision to leave gender largely undefined may be an effort to democratize meaning. Usually, the people who are most eager to define what makes something “art” are those seeking to reject stuff they don’t agree with.
>Arguably what is at stake is people’s right to define themselves, rather than being defined externally.
I can see a strong argument that people have a right to define themselves. I don't see a strong argument that people have a right not to be defined differently by others.
Agreed, and this is the crux of a lot of social debates. If everyone exclusively self-defines, the result is incoherence and collective action becomes impossible. If everyone is exclusively defined by someone else, they lose autonomy. So there’s a constant tension between individualism and collectivism, played out linguistically. And, arguably, someone could use advocacy for the right to self-definition as a rallying cry to galvanize group action, and to marginalize those who disagree, and this would be just as co-optive as someone who used advocacy for a preferred geoup identity to do so.
To this point, "man" and "woman" are social roles more than anything else, and "I am a man" is a fairly significant social statement that could easily be enough to place someone in that role, if it is said sincerely.
"Reading about the civil rights movement, one gets the sense of how ruthlessly tactical they were. They didn’t just complain about injustice, they thought carefully about the PR ramifications of their protests. The same is true of those who advocated for gay rights. Trans advocates, in contrast, seem to treat PR norms with derision. If people aren’t already on board, they’re thought to be irredeemable. Being outrageous and pushing for wildly unpopular programs like trans women being allowed to compete in women’s sports is seen as a minimum requirement for remaining pure."
This is a very inaccurate description of the civil and gay rights movements. They cared about how things looked out on TV, but "PR ramifications" makes it sound like they would have sought out David Shor and backed down if the polls on voting rights were unfavorable.
MLK: "We’ve committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I’m going to continue to say it. And we won’t stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation. But God has a way of even putting nations in their place. The God that I worship has a way of saying, 'Don’t play with me.' He has a way of saying, as the God of the Old Testament used to say to the Hebrews, 'Don’t play with me, Israel. Don’t play with me, Babylon. Be still and know that I am God. And if you don’t stop your reckless course, I’ll rise up and break the backbone of your power.' And that can happen to America."
Agreed that there is no genocide happening, but hyperbole sells. The trans ideology has kind of become a lynchpin for the progressives to hang their hat on and thereby alienate a lot of the centre.
The whole thing just seems solipsistic. Just because one thinks one is something doesn’t make it so. One could claim to be a surgeon but without the credentials would be justly denied that role. And this is where much of the conservative pushback comes from, the aggressive demands (by some) to have access to sex protected spaces. But even within that there are levels. Bathrooms are a non issue, sports are a major one. And manipulating children is the worst of all.
Treating people with kindness should be the default, even if they make it difficult at times. Call them by their name (the compelled speech of pronouns is nonsensical though). Treat them as the gender they claim to present, within reason. Keep in mind that enabling ultimately destructive behaviors is not being kind, even if it spares feelings at the outset.
"Just because one thinks one is something doesn’t make it so. One could claim to be a surgeon but without the credentials would be justly denied that role. "
One can reasonably make the argument that being a surgeon depends on skills, while being a man/woman/nonbinary depends on social roles and social identity, which are things that people are more universally capable of being (insofar as it does not exactly take training to be a woman/man.
Circular, yes, but when we are talking about a role that has more to do with how you position yourself socially than anything else, circular and self-defined is not necessarily a problem.
Now, I do not necessarily believe this to be the case for gender, but it seemed worth mentioning.
I'm wondering if puffery is a better way to understand these claims than ontology. When people say "trans people are being genocided" it seems more akin to a toothpaste ad saying their product is "the best in the world." Similar to the once ubitiquitous (circa 2020) slogan "silence is violence" ... the main point of the slogan is the two words rhyming, and only the most fringe people would take the claim literally.
We usually understand puffery to have essentially no relationship to facts about the world (other than maybe like “the manufacturers of this toothpaste would like you to buy it”), it’s purely emotive. By contrast, I think someone talking about or hearing “trans genocide“ probably does think that there is some underlying objective Bad Thing behind the statement even if there’s not literally mass murder. Yet pretty much every time someone tries to substantiate that Bad Thing, the claim falls apart under minimal scrutiny.
I think it's a form of rhetoric ... the activists who say “trans genocide“ believe (incorrectly in my opinion) that the hyperbole will help them achieve political aims they want ... for example segregating sports based on gender identity instead of based on sex. But I don't think any of them believe that they are making ontological arguments about the existence of anyone.
This is a kind of intellectually dishonest rhetoric that I see a lot. I'm not sure if there's a name for it, but it basically involves using words and definitions to put certain intuitions in people's heads that the basic facts of the situation wouldn't. For instance, you might have a word like "genocide," for which people have some very extreme ideas in their heads. And people have tried to write down some definitions and criteria to capture these mental concepts referred to by "genocide." But then minimal satisfaction of the written criteria, often in a roundabout way, is used by people to argue that something is genocide, even though the actual reality of the situation doesn't match people's intuitions about what genocide means. But because those intuitions exist, people end up thinking the situation is much worse than it really is simply because someone convinced them that something technically meets the written criteria for genocide. You can make a case that certain trans legislation technically meets the criteria for genocide, but that doesn't really tell you anything because the intuitions you'll get from that will be wrong. As you pointed, the right does this for words like invasion. It's really quite a dishonest trick and people should stop doing it.
I think Scott beat you to it! This sounds a lot like his noncentral fallacy:
> If he can unilaterally declare a Worst Argument, then so can I. I declare the Worst Argument In The World to be this: "X is in a category whose archetypal member gives us a certain emotional reaction. Therefore, we should apply that emotional reaction to X, even though it is not a central category member."
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncentral-fallacy-the-worst-argument-in-the-world
A bit rare is when people attempt to downplay something by saying it doesn't match the dictionary definition, even though it matches the intuitions in a lot of ways.
But does it work? It seems to work pretty well for the right.
It works in that it helps convince people that something is worse than it actually is but if you're arguing against a person who can recognize this trick, it's pretty easy for them to discredit.
I feel like when people talk about denying trans people’s right to exist, they are talking about that persons right to exist *in so far as* they are a trans person. If being trans is an incredibly integral part of someone existence, and a legislative body renders living out that experience illegal, they are denying that person their right to exist (as a trans person). That implicit ‘as a trans person’ is really important though because of how inextricably linked it is to the individuals identity.
As an analogy a government might make it illegal to read or practice philosophy, and people might say they are denying the right to exist of philosophers. Likewise there is an implicit ‘as philosophers’ there, but supposing many philosophers are so connected to philosophy that it is an integral part of their identity, it seems like omitting that appended phrase isn’t actually that crazy.
I’m not sure that it is being rendered illegal to identity as the opposite sex anywhere in the western world though? Let’s stick to US. The Supreme Court has upheld inclusion of trans identification in anti-discrimination law. How is being trans made to be illegal? Are people going to jail for being trans ?
I agree its not being made illegal merely to identify as trans. But there might be component to living out life as a trans person that are rendered illegal making it more difficult to live out that life as completely, and thus undermining ones ability to exist in that way. The ability to use the bathroom of your corresponding gender might be one example. Returning the the philosopher analogy, the government might not make "being a philosopher" illegal, but they might ban and destroy all the philosophy books, and public discussion of philosophy. Thats an extreme analogy of course, but they are likewise undermining the ability to exist as a philosopher through those policies.
Yes access to sex-based spaces and organizations certainly seems to be the rub. A few observations, in Thailand, lady boys use the men’s room with little suicidality as a result. They simply recognize that sex and gender are not the same and bathroom assignment is based on the former. Alternatively, all gender bathrooms and family / single use bathrooms seem to be an arrangement that works and is being widely used. Most corporate chains (target, for example) as well as airports have this accommodation.
I don’t think most people have a problem with transitioned trans women using the women’s bathroom, and the North Carolina bill that forced otherwise was quickly reversed amidst a public backlash. Just a few years ago! What changed? Well, I think the insistence that self identification alone is sufficient to gain access to these spaces. (The gender fluid crowd that insists they can change gender on a daily basis didn’t help).
So I feel as if the impasse is due to overreach on the trans lobby’s part, and if we could return to a simpler time where transitioned women are treated different than merely those who identify as women, we’d find it easier to resolve these issues.
> No one wants to kill them.
This is false. Some people do want to kill transgender people. Some (smaller) set of people want to kill them for being transgender.
For a post praising accurate rhetoric, making a false claim in the second paragraph is disappointing.
(The prior sentence, denying transgender "genocide" is on much stronger footing.)
When people say "no one thinks X" this is a shorthand for meaning "virtually no one thinks X"
Define “virtually no one”? Also, if some distortion from literal truth is allowed, why is the distortion you complain about qualitatively less justifiable than this one?
I also think it’s somewhat different when you describe a concrete action. It’s one thing to somewhat exaggerate over something no one actually does. It’s another thing to say that when the conduct actually happens.
For example, “no one wants to privatize all welfare” may be fine if that’s completely politically impossible. But if New Jersey actually did that tomorrow, the statement would be clearly inaccurate even if it’s a highly localized New Jersey impulse.
If the state of New Jersey decided to privatize all welfare then yes, it would not be the case that virtually no one wants to privatize all welfare.
In 2023 the nonprofit Everytown for Gun Safety counted 35 transgender people murdered in the US. Note that's not 35 transgender people murdered because they were trans, that's just all the transgender people that were murdered regardless of reason. According to the CDC, in 2023 there were 22,830 murders altogether. In 2023 there were 258 million adults living in the US. That means that at most .009% of the adult population want to kill people enough (enough to actually do it, anyway) and only .15% of those people want to kill transgender people. So yeah, I'd say virtually no one does.
I would rescue the original wording not by adding “virtually,” but by noting that the colloquial use of “no one” actually means “no one on my side of the specific and live policy debate that I’m currently jumping into and to which the hysterical activists are responding” or “no one in this particular instance or any adjacent and relevant one.”
It’s “Calm down, Johnny, no one’s trying to take away your toys forever. Daddy just needs to clean them.” Even while the neighbor child might actually be scheming to do just that.
The point is that the people opposing self-identification for bathrooms and sports and legal IDs are not also advocating for killing. It’s not part of the platform by any stretch. Rather, it’s just a totally irrelevant fact that some people may want to kill trans people (or me!), which means that trans activists are, indeed, incorrect when they accuse gender critical activists of being engaged in a pro-genocide project to literally kill trans people.
>Less perniciously but more commonly, the dominant view among those on the left seems to be that a man is simply one who calls themself a man. This is an absolutely terrible definition! It’s flagrantly circular because it uses the term it’s defining; a bit like claiming that a Glosh is whatever has Gloshy properties. What are they identifying as? Surely they’re not merely identifying as one who calls themself a man. For then they’d identify as one who calls themself a man, and one who calls themself one who calls themself a man, and so on ad infinitum, without the term man having any deeper meaning. But normally for one to call oneself a thing, they have some deeper idea of what the thing is!<
I agree that this is a bad definition, but it is not circular, let alone flagrantly so. You are making a use-mention error here. The definition doesn't _use_ the term "man" (which would be circular), but mentions it. Here is a circular definition: A "man" is someone who is a man. In this definition "man" is used and so the definition is circular.
But that is not what is claimed by the hypothetical leftist here. They are claiming: A "man" is one who calls themself a 'man'. Here we can criticize this definition for placing the bar for "man" too low, or as not accurately the concept people are using, etc., but they have a definition that distinguishes between people on a discernible basis (many people have never called themselves a "man."
What you are emphasizing here is that this understanding of "man" makes it an empty concept. That is correct as a criticism. The person who calls himself a man has some richer concept of what "man" means than merely "I am a person who calls himself a 'man.' " That richer concept is being ignored by the left when they offer this definition.
There are two problems here. The first has to do with the left's often confused understanding of what it means for something to be socially constructed. They view gender (and hence "man") as a completely socially constructed category. They then adopt the right's implicit understanding of "socially constructed" as meaning "made-up" or "completely up to the individual." This is obviously false. Currency is socially constructed, but I cannot just decide that I am a billionaire. Similar constraints could obtain for gender categories even if it is 100% socially constructed.
The second issue has to do with the left's political coalition. They actually do realize that the above definition is inadequate, but they are willing to argue for it because they think it is co-extensive with a more accurate definition. They will focus on this extensive rather than intensive definition because of the internal contradiction in their view between the view that gender is socially constructed (important to feminism) and that people have some kind of true gender identity (important to trans activists). An empty definition like this allows them to punt on this issue.
I think it's at least reasonable to claim that conservatives supporting eg. gay panic defense laws want to kill trans people, since legalizing that act is the point of those laws! You could also say that conversion therapy - which increases their suicide rates a lot - is tantamount to trying to kill them (or at least some kind of lesser manslaughter), since it predictably and consistently leads to lots of trans people dying.
Do you have any peer reviewed research that shows that trans conversion therapy increases risk of suicide to an extent that would lead to the outcome you suppose here? This is more hyperbole.
https://www.science.org/content/article/new-study-reveals-risks-transgender-conversion-therapy
Thank you for this link. This study is low quality (retrospective, self reported), and found only one significant outcome of many tested (and even that is 1.2% - 1.96%, not exactly earth shattering result).
Suffice to say this does not make the practice tantamount to murder, or genocide. That said, I do not approve of the practice for other reasons that do not require hyperbole.
This is a good run down of the study’s limitations (again though I think the conclusion is broadly correct that the practice is unethical).
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-020-01844-2
I think there's more scholarship on this topic https://www.perplexity.ai/search/do-you-have-any-peer-reviewed-Ktr1HCMEQpOd8v4r1.Oblw or wiki for an entry point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBTQ_people
I made a top level comment on this post that handwaving threat to trans safety is not that way to go. Yes it's bad strategy to push all trans antis further into the far right but I mean that as bad strategy, I don't mean there's no threat.
Yes I think I the hyperbole really is counter-productive but does appear conversion therapy is unproductive and unethical, even if it isn’t literally genocide. Thanks for having a space to have a conversation without the vitriol. Substack seems to be only place left where this happens.
I don’t think this claim is reasonable.
If I support stronger stand-your ground laws or reinstating the death penalty, does that mean that I “want to kill“ men/young adults/black people/the poor/Southerners/any other group that’s statistically more likely to commit violent crime?
Similarly, while trans people are surely more likely to do the sort of things countenanced by the “gay panic” defense, the great majority don’t, and not all people who do are trans.
Maybe I'm just high but I thought this was funny (and spot on). My only issue was I had to google Motte and Bailey
My only qualm with the activist nonsense is that people that aren’t trans have been treated with gender medicine. I think that anyone should find that concerning, but it shouldn’t radicalize their politics to a degree that one makes an appearance on Fox!
If by "gender medicine" you mean hormone replacement therapy and puberty blockers— most people who receive these treatments aren't trans because these treatments were developed first and foremost for non-trans patients— post-menopausal women, men with testosterone deficiency, children with precocious puberty etc.
Do detrans stories matter to you?
>The Bailey is that Republicans deny one can change their gender. The Motte is that they want to murder trans people.
You got this backwards. The Motte is the defensible idea, which in this case is that Republicans deny one can change their gender. The Bailey is the productive idea that you want to use that isn’t very defensible, which is that Republicans want to murder trans people. Activists can say Republicans “deny trans peoples right to exist” with the goal of people hearing the Bailey, and when pressed they can claim that they only meant the Motte.
I agree with much of what you wrote here. I have a number of issues with the trans community, one of the biggest being what I perceive as a lack of patience—or perhaps an unwillingness to tolerate ignorance. In my personal experiences and from what I’ve observed, many trans individuals react harshly, even aggressively, to people who are simply uninformed or trying to understand. The way some of them carry themselves—with absolute certainty and moral superiority—can be downright unsettling. At times, it honestly reminds me of witch hunts: a rigid, unquestionable belief system that punishes dissent or even curiosity.
Another major issue is the apparent unwillingness to acknowledge deeper psychological, social, or cultural factors underlying gender dysphoria and transition. There's an dogmatic refusal to explore or even allow alternative explanations or nuanced discussions—everything must affirm, or it's labeled hateful.
And frankly, no offense—but there is a sense of absurdity when you step back and look at the bigger picture. We’re facing massive, tangible problems: economic inequality, climate change, the obesity epidemic, malaria, and other preventable diseases that kill millions every year. Against that backdrop, watching well-educated people in powerful institutions get worked up over pronouns, bathroom access, or demanding universal affirmation of someone's gender identity can feel surreal—sometimes even comically out of touch with reality.
I’m not saying trans people don’t face real struggles. They do. But the level of urgency and moral weight assigned to their cause, especially in elite spaces, seems wildly disproportionate to the actual impact or scope of the issue when compared to other global crises. And yes, I realize saying this may offend some—but offense alone isn’t a rebuttal.
There’s more to say, and I know I’m not expressing all of it. But I think this general discomfort and sense of disconnect is something many people feel, even if they’re afraid to say it out loud.
My advice to men who think they are women. If you think that, there are a few things that you need to understand. First of all is that you are still a man because you can't change your biological sex. It's okay to dress any way you wish and to adopt any superficial, stereotypical attributes of women that you desire. Live your life. No one should care, I certainly don't.
However, because women are entitled to be treated fairly and to enjoy privacy from men there are certain things that are prohibited to you and me because we are men. You can't compete against women in most sports because it would be unfair. You can't go into women's private places like restrooms and locker rooms because that would make them feel unsafe. Finally, if you are a criminal you certainly can't be imprisoned with women.
That's it, just like me.
BTW, being men in America we are considered by many to be among the most privileged individuals in the world. Enjoy your status.
Yes/No: would these restrictions apply to a boy who was brought up, for some reason, as a girl his entire life, socialised as a girl his entire life, had feminine mannerisms, fashion, etc, maybe even was given Estrogen or puberty blockers, and then chose to continue living as a woman?
kcat: Probably not.
So I would argue it's not the biological sex that's the issue here. Trans women can seemingly be exempt from these rules.
kcat: Any male who has gone through puberty and still has male genitalia should be subject to these suggested “rules”.
It seems that your original proclamation has been watered down quite a bit. From "biological sex" to "both gone through puberty and still have male genitalia".
Of course, I could object on two fronts, which is that A) does having a dick really stop a man who thinks he's a woman from being "dangerous" and B) looking at any number of completely passing, socially feminine trans women and expecting them to be in male spaces would be even more absurd.
kcat: Why absurd? The argument that having men in women’s spaces is no threat to women should equally mean that having women appearing men in men’s spaces is not a threat to men. I certainly wouldn’t object to them being in a men’s restroom. Would you?
Arguably what is at stake is people’s right to define themselves, rather than being defined externally. In that light, the flimsiness of the definition “a man is anyone who defines themselves as a man” is a feature, not a bug, because it allows people to affiliate without necessarily sharing a strict definition. Whether this is worth the ambiguity is up for debate, of course — from a purist perspective, it’s intellectually lazy. On the other hand, control of the prevalent definition often becomes political control over the group it represents; I can gate-keep and enforce ideological purity by dictating who qualifies as a “real man,” or a “real American,” or a “true Christian,” etc. So the decision to leave gender largely undefined may be an effort to democratize meaning. Usually, the people who are most eager to define what makes something “art” are those seeking to reject stuff they don’t agree with.
>Arguably what is at stake is people’s right to define themselves, rather than being defined externally.
I can see a strong argument that people have a right to define themselves. I don't see a strong argument that people have a right not to be defined differently by others.
Agreed, and this is the crux of a lot of social debates. If everyone exclusively self-defines, the result is incoherence and collective action becomes impossible. If everyone is exclusively defined by someone else, they lose autonomy. So there’s a constant tension between individualism and collectivism, played out linguistically. And, arguably, someone could use advocacy for the right to self-definition as a rallying cry to galvanize group action, and to marginalize those who disagree, and this would be just as co-optive as someone who used advocacy for a preferred geoup identity to do so.
To this point, "man" and "woman" are social roles more than anything else, and "I am a man" is a fairly significant social statement that could easily be enough to place someone in that role, if it is said sincerely.
"Reading about the civil rights movement, one gets the sense of how ruthlessly tactical they were. They didn’t just complain about injustice, they thought carefully about the PR ramifications of their protests. The same is true of those who advocated for gay rights. Trans advocates, in contrast, seem to treat PR norms with derision. If people aren’t already on board, they’re thought to be irredeemable. Being outrageous and pushing for wildly unpopular programs like trans women being allowed to compete in women’s sports is seen as a minimum requirement for remaining pure."
This is a very inaccurate description of the civil and gay rights movements. They cared about how things looked out on TV, but "PR ramifications" makes it sound like they would have sought out David Shor and backed down if the polls on voting rights were unfavorable.
MLK: "We’ve committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I’m going to continue to say it. And we won’t stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation. But God has a way of even putting nations in their place. The God that I worship has a way of saying, 'Don’t play with me.' He has a way of saying, as the God of the Old Testament used to say to the Hebrews, 'Don’t play with me, Israel. Don’t play with me, Babylon. Be still and know that I am God. And if you don’t stop your reckless course, I’ll rise up and break the backbone of your power.' And that can happen to America."
Malcolm X: The bullet or the ballot
Stokely Carmichael/Kwame Ture: Black people should have joined up with Native Americans to fight white people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DnVvcYCW0s
ACT UP: The FDA and Reagan are killing us.
Every movement has radicals, moderates, and conservatives. Every movement relies on all three to exert pressure.
Good article
Agreed that there is no genocide happening, but hyperbole sells. The trans ideology has kind of become a lynchpin for the progressives to hang their hat on and thereby alienate a lot of the centre.
The whole thing just seems solipsistic. Just because one thinks one is something doesn’t make it so. One could claim to be a surgeon but without the credentials would be justly denied that role. And this is where much of the conservative pushback comes from, the aggressive demands (by some) to have access to sex protected spaces. But even within that there are levels. Bathrooms are a non issue, sports are a major one. And manipulating children is the worst of all.
Treating people with kindness should be the default, even if they make it difficult at times. Call them by their name (the compelled speech of pronouns is nonsensical though). Treat them as the gender they claim to present, within reason. Keep in mind that enabling ultimately destructive behaviors is not being kind, even if it spares feelings at the outset.
"Just because one thinks one is something doesn’t make it so. One could claim to be a surgeon but without the credentials would be justly denied that role. "
One can reasonably make the argument that being a surgeon depends on skills, while being a man/woman/nonbinary depends on social roles and social identity, which are things that people are more universally capable of being (insofar as it does not exactly take training to be a woman/man.
Still a circular argument at best.
Circular, yes, but when we are talking about a role that has more to do with how you position yourself socially than anything else, circular and self-defined is not necessarily a problem.
Now, I do not necessarily believe this to be the case for gender, but it seemed worth mentioning.
Worth reading about how much of this is manufactured https://open.substack.com/pub/yuribezmenov/p/celebrity-trans-kids?r=dsf0b&utm_medium=ios
I'm wondering if puffery is a better way to understand these claims than ontology. When people say "trans people are being genocided" it seems more akin to a toothpaste ad saying their product is "the best in the world." Similar to the once ubitiquitous (circa 2020) slogan "silence is violence" ... the main point of the slogan is the two words rhyming, and only the most fringe people would take the claim literally.
We usually understand puffery to have essentially no relationship to facts about the world (other than maybe like “the manufacturers of this toothpaste would like you to buy it”), it’s purely emotive. By contrast, I think someone talking about or hearing “trans genocide“ probably does think that there is some underlying objective Bad Thing behind the statement even if there’s not literally mass murder. Yet pretty much every time someone tries to substantiate that Bad Thing, the claim falls apart under minimal scrutiny.
I think it's a form of rhetoric ... the activists who say “trans genocide“ believe (incorrectly in my opinion) that the hyperbole will help them achieve political aims they want ... for example segregating sports based on gender identity instead of based on sex. But I don't think any of them believe that they are making ontological arguments about the existence of anyone.
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/texas-bill-identify-transgender-state-felony-rcna195642
https://abc7chicago.com/amp/post/elgin-man-john-kammrad-charged-derogatory-remarks-attack-carpentersville-mcdonalds-officials/16497954/