Yes, I have thought something similar. Certainly the standing up of liberalism to both Nazism and Communism demonstrated that it was at least not wishy washy or fence sitting. It won the 20th century, thank goodness.
Thanks for this article Helen! I haven’t had many interactions with trans-identifying people but seeing more online. A few women transing as men via mastectomies & hormones. Main reasoning I’ve seen is being taken as a man anyway (misgendered) and finding it somewhat frightening (or embarrassing?) I sort of understand as I get misgendered a lot, for some reason? It may be because I’m tall? With a low voice? Not much I can do. I correct every so often (or misgender back!) Occasionally people apologize. I have a vague recollection of a social psych study of how kids learn gender (ask a 3 year old how they know woman vs man). It’s the shoes! 👟 👠
Thanks Helen -- a very useful overflowing. "Consistent, principled liberalism ... is often significantly harder, more complicated and more stressful than falling in line with a dogmatic, single-issue movement." Yes indeed! I stand with you there.
I wish I could like this 100 times. I'm one of those cliche liberals turned anti-woke turned anti-anti-woke, and I like being brought back down to earth when I get caught up in the insanity.
The left likes to look back at how Afghanistan was in the 70s and use it as an example of how the authoritarian religions can impose on society and how easy it is to “fall" from a liberal society… BUT! They conveniently leave out the whole story… Afghanistan’s liberal society was enforced onto the conservatives at the time, banning head coverings etc.. as a result the religious or conservatives at the time went to the streets and protested.. they took over and fought to end the libealism that took their freedom away. . because the liberals were being authoritarian.. and for me this history is a strong reminder that you CANNOT give yourself the power you wouldn't want your worst enemy to have.. if you can ban head coverings, they can ban hair showing.. it is the same behavior, regardless of the moral reasoning behind such bans.. .. it is the freedom for all, even those I disagree with, that so many seem to have forgotten. They hypocrisy is frustrating.
I wrote a piece on this I haven't published yet. We should just treat gender identity beliefs exactly like religious beliefs. That is the sane middle. "I feel like a woman" and "I have a personal relationship with Jesus" are the same kind of belief and should be treated rhe same.
Since I agree with the essay I’ll pile onto the antagonist: As for living “as is our hard-earned right” well, no one really gets to do this, do we? We all have to negotiate between the expression of our peculiar (From Latin pecūliāris (“one's own”)) God-given ;-) selfhoods and social expectations, mores and tolerances. Most of us learn to cope and navigate rather than getting upset about culture not changing in the blink of an eye just because we want it to.
Liberal society priortizes cultural change in terms of vulnerability, historical atrocity, and even by the pure silliness of some prejudices. Rights are prioritized to the extent possible (given such resources as law enforcement) according to Maslows hierarchy: safety, shelter, economic flourishing and the on to education, career choices, etc.
One can learn to cope with one’s own social idiocy (from ἴδιος (ídios, “one's own, pertaining to oneself, private”) by understanding civil rights struggles throughout history. Young women, for instance, will never be truly safe in any society because of human biology, yet most seem to handle this.
I don't think your reading of the commenter is correct, let alone perfectly incapsulating a misunderstanding of liberal position.
If I read it charitably with an open mind, I don't see anything which directly contradicts liberal position. They are not arguing gender ideologist shouldn't be free to profess their religion. They are simply saying (for them) enough is enough and they won't participate in a "kindness" exactly as they aren't compelled to agree Christ is king. Which seems completely liberal to me.
I am glad you recognize New Atheism bad tactics, I hope more prominent figures could do the same (Dawkins and Coyne are still beating a dead horse) but I won't holding my breath.
Neither Coyne nor Dawkins call for the banning of religion.
Nor did Hitchens, nor does Harris (aside from anti-Islamist rhetoric).
They have consistently called for recognizing the harm that magical thinking does to rational societies, and for fully extirpating such harm from polic-making.
You still are free to believe what you want. But not to enforce those beliefs on others (“My God says abortion is bad.” “So what?”)
I never said they were calling for the banning of religion.
What I mean is their attitude is counter-producing. Atheist bus, really? And it's not even the most inflammatory thing. "It wasn't helpful and only alienated people". I would be happy if this was more widely ackowledged.
That you consider an Atheist bus to be “inflammatory”, and that you and our OP consider the approaches of New Atheism to have been bad tactics, belies your misunderstanding of the dynamics of atheism vs entrenched Christian exceptionalism in our societies: opposing hegemony is not inflammatory except to those who consider the current situation as the natural order, and change requires multiple approaches, including both rapprochement & countering the accepted & prevalent state of affairs that permeates our cultures.
Opposing hegemony isnt inflammatory, being unnecessesarily rude is. A tactic is *objectively* bad when it backfires, as it did, but please continue your morale crusade while being convinced of defending liberalism and rationality
You only find the idea of an atheist bus “rude” as a pearl-clutching response to hang on to Christian domination of our shared societies, Enrico.
It didn’t “backfire”, “objectively” or otherwise, as the grip of religious intolerance continues to weaken: it took both MLK and Malcolm X to drive some change in US treatment of Blacks, as while “kindness” changes some minds, it’s too easily co-opted, and stridency prevents its complete dilution into platitudes that effect no change.
Not much point in continuing to argue. I don't know where you live and what kind of Christian domination you are experiencing
I live in Italy, the Vatican is a presence (not always for the worse) and the atheist bus backfired spectacularly. I also note that that there is quite a difference between the Spanish Inquisition and Liberation Theology. The key is working with those who hold the right ideas, and here in Italy its an historical fact that certain parts of the Curch helped achieve secular battles, including objecting to compulsory military service and even divorce and abortion
The modern practice of "liberalism" reminds me of the movie Carrie, where the partitioners are all those feeling maligned and taunted during the grade school experience, and now as adults imbued with special witch powers of a college degree, have attempted to lock all the people in a room and set it on "woke" fire. But unlike the movie, there is no ending... it is a perpetual resentful rage and nastiness against those owning any identity connection to the perceived grade school bullies.
It is like the childhood victims of the overt-narcissist mean girls have become much worse adult vulnerable narcissist mean girls and call themselves liberal progressives.
You seem to have visceral reactions to “liberal” “woke” & college educated? That movie Carrie is, I understand, a horror movie? Don’t know the movie too well but as I recall there was childhood abuse by the mother & lying manipulation by a ‘boyfriend’ (as a joke or something?) So, hell reigns down on the inauthentic, mocking bystanders? Not something Carrie reveled in (didn’t she die?) but maybe (hinted at) in an arm reaching out from the grave? Been a long while since my adolescence & I haven’t interacted with many recently.
"You seem to have visceral reactions to “liberal” “woke”"
Well yes, and so does most of the population of the world.
"college educated?"
LOL. No. But the over-educated... the people that really have nothing productive to show for their career but they are sure they are experts at everything. I have an MBA but have founded two business which employ hundreds. It isn't the degree that is important, it is the founding and running of the two businesses.
And you miss the point of the analogy. Watch the movie... there is nothing good about the ending unless you are happy with total destruction.
Fine, gender identity is a religion, in America it’s protected by the first amendment and I can teach it to kids as a Bible Study. Think the world is better off without this? Tough.
There have always been people living as members of the opposite sex as long as I have been aware. Employers have been free to fire them, they were never allowed to teach in schools because parents wouldn't allow it, and they had to really be able to pass to go into the other restroom. If a penis were seen in a women's locker room, police would arrest the offender. Certainly, no cross-dresser would have been allowed on a girls' sports team. No one had to pretend it was normal. THAT was liberal non-coercion.
Yes, I have thought something similar. Certainly the standing up of liberalism to both Nazism and Communism demonstrated that it was at least not wishy washy or fence sitting. It won the 20th century, thank goodness.
Thanks for this article Helen! I haven’t had many interactions with trans-identifying people but seeing more online. A few women transing as men via mastectomies & hormones. Main reasoning I’ve seen is being taken as a man anyway (misgendered) and finding it somewhat frightening (or embarrassing?) I sort of understand as I get misgendered a lot, for some reason? It may be because I’m tall? With a low voice? Not much I can do. I correct every so often (or misgender back!) Occasionally people apologize. I have a vague recollection of a social psych study of how kids learn gender (ask a 3 year old how they know woman vs man). It’s the shoes! 👟 👠
Thanks Helen -- a very useful overflowing. "Consistent, principled liberalism ... is often significantly harder, more complicated and more stressful than falling in line with a dogmatic, single-issue movement." Yes indeed! I stand with you there.
Thanks for saying this, Helen. I wish I could get my 'progressive' friends to see this.
I wish I could like this 100 times. I'm one of those cliche liberals turned anti-woke turned anti-anti-woke, and I like being brought back down to earth when I get caught up in the insanity.
The left likes to look back at how Afghanistan was in the 70s and use it as an example of how the authoritarian religions can impose on society and how easy it is to “fall" from a liberal society… BUT! They conveniently leave out the whole story… Afghanistan’s liberal society was enforced onto the conservatives at the time, banning head coverings etc.. as a result the religious or conservatives at the time went to the streets and protested.. they took over and fought to end the libealism that took their freedom away. . because the liberals were being authoritarian.. and for me this history is a strong reminder that you CANNOT give yourself the power you wouldn't want your worst enemy to have.. if you can ban head coverings, they can ban hair showing.. it is the same behavior, regardless of the moral reasoning behind such bans.. .. it is the freedom for all, even those I disagree with, that so many seem to have forgotten. They hypocrisy is frustrating.
I wrote a piece on this I haven't published yet. We should just treat gender identity beliefs exactly like religious beliefs. That is the sane middle. "I feel like a woman" and "I have a personal relationship with Jesus" are the same kind of belief and should be treated rhe same.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M3rMRjJmUVJWRxMeHEpjQBqmTp73mVo3XE0uE4hUJxQ/edit?usp=drivesdk
This was really insightful and compelling, thanks for sharing it.
Just so well said. I'm gluing this into my journal. I might have to memorize parts of this for future discussions with loved ones.....
As usual, thank you, Helen.
“…that rejected any bullying and dehumanising of trans people and discriminating against them”
What’s bullying? What’s dehumanization? What’s discrimination here? A sentence like this is meaningless when such vague and disputed terms are used.
Since I agree with the essay I’ll pile onto the antagonist: As for living “as is our hard-earned right” well, no one really gets to do this, do we? We all have to negotiate between the expression of our peculiar (From Latin pecūliāris (“one's own”)) God-given ;-) selfhoods and social expectations, mores and tolerances. Most of us learn to cope and navigate rather than getting upset about culture not changing in the blink of an eye just because we want it to.
Liberal society priortizes cultural change in terms of vulnerability, historical atrocity, and even by the pure silliness of some prejudices. Rights are prioritized to the extent possible (given such resources as law enforcement) according to Maslows hierarchy: safety, shelter, economic flourishing and the on to education, career choices, etc.
One can learn to cope with one’s own social idiocy (from ἴδιος (ídios, “one's own, pertaining to oneself, private”) by understanding civil rights struggles throughout history. Young women, for instance, will never be truly safe in any society because of human biology, yet most seem to handle this.
I don't think your reading of the commenter is correct, let alone perfectly incapsulating a misunderstanding of liberal position.
If I read it charitably with an open mind, I don't see anything which directly contradicts liberal position. They are not arguing gender ideologist shouldn't be free to profess their religion. They are simply saying (for them) enough is enough and they won't participate in a "kindness" exactly as they aren't compelled to agree Christ is king. Which seems completely liberal to me.
I am glad you recognize New Atheism bad tactics, I hope more prominent figures could do the same (Dawkins and Coyne are still beating a dead horse) but I won't holding my breath.
Neither Coyne nor Dawkins call for the banning of religion.
Nor did Hitchens, nor does Harris (aside from anti-Islamist rhetoric).
They have consistently called for recognizing the harm that magical thinking does to rational societies, and for fully extirpating such harm from polic-making.
You still are free to believe what you want. But not to enforce those beliefs on others (“My God says abortion is bad.” “So what?”)
I never said they were calling for the banning of religion.
What I mean is their attitude is counter-producing. Atheist bus, really? And it's not even the most inflammatory thing. "It wasn't helpful and only alienated people". I would be happy if this was more widely ackowledged.
That you consider an Atheist bus to be “inflammatory”, and that you and our OP consider the approaches of New Atheism to have been bad tactics, belies your misunderstanding of the dynamics of atheism vs entrenched Christian exceptionalism in our societies: opposing hegemony is not inflammatory except to those who consider the current situation as the natural order, and change requires multiple approaches, including both rapprochement & countering the accepted & prevalent state of affairs that permeates our cultures.
Opposing hegemony isnt inflammatory, being unnecessesarily rude is. A tactic is *objectively* bad when it backfires, as it did, but please continue your morale crusade while being convinced of defending liberalism and rationality
You only find the idea of an atheist bus “rude” as a pearl-clutching response to hang on to Christian domination of our shared societies, Enrico.
It didn’t “backfire”, “objectively” or otherwise, as the grip of religious intolerance continues to weaken: it took both MLK and Malcolm X to drive some change in US treatment of Blacks, as while “kindness” changes some minds, it’s too easily co-opted, and stridency prevents its complete dilution into platitudes that effect no change.
Not much point in continuing to argue. I don't know where you live and what kind of Christian domination you are experiencing
I live in Italy, the Vatican is a presence (not always for the worse) and the atheist bus backfired spectacularly. I also note that that there is quite a difference between the Spanish Inquisition and Liberation Theology. The key is working with those who hold the right ideas, and here in Italy its an historical fact that certain parts of the Curch helped achieve secular battles, including objecting to compulsory military service and even divorce and abortion
The modern practice of "liberalism" reminds me of the movie Carrie, where the partitioners are all those feeling maligned and taunted during the grade school experience, and now as adults imbued with special witch powers of a college degree, have attempted to lock all the people in a room and set it on "woke" fire. But unlike the movie, there is no ending... it is a perpetual resentful rage and nastiness against those owning any identity connection to the perceived grade school bullies.
It is like the childhood victims of the overt-narcissist mean girls have become much worse adult vulnerable narcissist mean girls and call themselves liberal progressives.
You seem to have visceral reactions to “liberal” “woke” & college educated? That movie Carrie is, I understand, a horror movie? Don’t know the movie too well but as I recall there was childhood abuse by the mother & lying manipulation by a ‘boyfriend’ (as a joke or something?) So, hell reigns down on the inauthentic, mocking bystanders? Not something Carrie reveled in (didn’t she die?) but maybe (hinted at) in an arm reaching out from the grave? Been a long while since my adolescence & I haven’t interacted with many recently.
Frank is a moron.
"You seem to have visceral reactions to “liberal” “woke”"
Well yes, and so does most of the population of the world.
"college educated?"
LOL. No. But the over-educated... the people that really have nothing productive to show for their career but they are sure they are experts at everything. I have an MBA but have founded two business which employ hundreds. It isn't the degree that is important, it is the founding and running of the two businesses.
And you miss the point of the analogy. Watch the movie... there is nothing good about the ending unless you are happy with total destruction.
I admire small business, for real. Appreciated. But that movie, the original & remake. idk can’t sit through the whole thing. creepy!
Fine, gender identity is a religion, in America it’s protected by the first amendment and I can teach it to kids as a Bible Study. Think the world is better off without this? Tough.
There have always been people living as members of the opposite sex as long as I have been aware. Employers have been free to fire them, they were never allowed to teach in schools because parents wouldn't allow it, and they had to really be able to pass to go into the other restroom. If a penis were seen in a women's locker room, police would arrest the offender. Certainly, no cross-dresser would have been allowed on a girls' sports team. No one had to pretend it was normal. THAT was liberal non-coercion.