5 ms·

> Abigail Shrier — author of a new book exploring the rapid, massive increase in teenage girls self-identifying as trans boys and undergoing permanent gender re

> Abigail Shrier — author of a new book exploring the rapid, massive increase in teenage girls self-identifying as trans boys and undergoing permanent gender reassignment therapies and surgeries in their teens — published an article in Quillette describing the extraordinary efforts by major corporations and various activists to prevent her book from being purchased Sincerely, can someone direct me to a calm, low jargon explanation that I might be able to grasp on why there seems to be a full court press to suppress rather than refute this narrative? What is dangerous about viewing this trend as a social contagion, and what makes stopping people hearing about it trump other civil rights? Why, on this topic is it so often "shut up" rather than "here's why she's wrong..."? Here's the closet thing to an explanation in the article: > The book and the arguments contained within it are fueling a wave of bills in state legislatures to criminalize health care for trans youth including through felony bans on the provision of care and forced outing of trans youth by school officials (an actual serious First Amendment concern). It's a hot legislative issue and therefore wrongthink on this subject should be suppressed? Free speech except about particularly important things? Gun rights have also been on a legislative roll without this treatment. Why is this different?

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
> Why, on this topic is it so often "shut up" rather than "here's why she's wrong..."? Because a certain (seemingly growing) contingent on the left views speech as violence and therefore will not engage in an argument, instead they'll try to make it so that the speech will never be said (resorting to violence, harassing the bureaucracy until they change institutional rules, etc.). One of the funnier phrases I saw recently that I think sums it up: "sticks and stones should break your bones, and words will always hurt me."
ouid 6y ago
What on earth does it mean to "out" a trans person? The whole point of transitioning is to be perceived differently. I can't hide my trans status from my parents or a school that I attended pre-transition. This is a totally disingenuous answer.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  I don’t get it either. Because acceptance is not automatic. There will always be people who won’t accept you as you see yourself.. it is their right. Having said that.. As a counter example: as immigrants, we always get ‘where are you from originally’. One can’t be ‘outed’ as an immigrant. It is what it is. And so what? If I had to hide that I am an immigrant, then it would mean that I am ok with discrimination against those who choose to disclose or can’t hide that they are immigrants. It is a fear based position. The calls for suppression of truth comes from a place of fear. I have some compassion for those acting out of fear, but we cannot sacrifice rational means to find fixes to problems ..neither can we suppress freedom of expression. If trans people are discriminated against, we should tackle that phenomena of intolerance. We can’t pretend that trans people don’t exist and we can’t feed the paranoia..justified or not. The only way to figure out answers is to dig down deep to get the root of the issue. This is impossible if we are not allowed to talk about it.
  - eesmith 6y ago
    > as immigrants, we always get ‘where are you from originally’. That question in the US usually means either 1) your accent is noticeably not American, or 2) you or your ancestors didn't come to the US from Europe or via the African diaspora. Native Americans get asked that question. Fourth-generation Chinese-Americans get asked that question. Puerto Ricans are asked that question. But a white friend of mine, born in the US to English parents, with no noticeable non-US accent, doesn't get asked that question. So "where are you from originally" comes across not about "immigrant" but about being "different" and even with an implication of being a second-class citizen. See for example the opinions given at https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/08/opinion/where-im-really-from/ https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/08/opinion/where-im... . Quoting Samantha Geovjian Clarke, born in the US, raised in Portland, Oregon: > Sometimes I think they feel like it's more polite to ask ambiguously "where are you from?" or "what are you?" because they're afraid to say race, ethnicity, heritage or nationality – lots of white people don't even know the difference. But they end up being hurtful and displaying deep-seated biases about race by implying I'm not really from America if I'm brown, even though I was born here, or worse, implying that I'm not human because I'm brown (with the "what are you?" question). If the question "where are you from originally" and variants are interpreted by many as a sign of intolerance, and not simply one of curiosity - which it surely is for some! - then perhaps it's not a particularly effective counter-example? If you want to dig down deeper to get to the root of this specific issue, here are some resources which talk about it: "Everyday Racism: ‘Where Are You Really From?’" at https://theglobepost.com/2017/08 https://theglobepost.com/2017/08 , /10/everyday-racism/ ; "Is It Racist to Ask People Where They're From?" at https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/07/question-where-are-you-from-racist/373818/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/07/qu... ; and an essay more focused on examples of when that question is asked with racist overtones, "“Where Are You From?” Racial Microaggressions" at https://othersociologist.com/2017/07/15/where-are-you-from-racial-microaggressions/ https://othersociologist.com/2017/07/15/where-are-you-from-r... .
Yetanfou 6y ago
You can not find a reasonable explanation of why those who deem Shrier's book unworthy of existence because those who voice such opinions do not believe in dialogue or dialectic. They are the victim of a group hysteria which claims whatever opinions the group espouses - which can vary over time and more often than not contradict earlier held opinions - are the absolute truth which shall not be strayed from. Those who dare to dissent are excommunicated. In short, they are part of a cult, a secular religion with its own martyrs, its own saints and its own devils. It is as if the church of Scientology suddenly had gained mass adherence and started espousing its value system on society.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Sincerely, can someone direct me to a calm, low jargon explanation that I might be able to grasp on why there seems to be a full court press to suppress rather than refute this narrative? Because it is essentially an ideological interpretive framework, not an empirical claim; the contentious part of it is not subject to falsification, so it cannot be refuted. > What is dangerous about viewing this trend as a social contagion There are two parts to viewing it as a “social contagion": (1) A negative value judgement, and (2) An empirical claim that it is a social phenomenon. #2 is not contentious, literally no one disputes that both social and personal acceptance of trans identity is a social phenomenon. So what's the contentious part? A value judgement. It's not subject to refutation. > Is that an argument that an ACLU lawyer would accept for other contentious issues, like abortion or gun control? That it's a hot legislative issue and therefore wrongthink on that subject should be suppressed? The ACLU has never opposed private action to oppose and discourage publication or distribution of views that a private actor views as unwelcome, in fact, were there state action to suppress such private action, the ACLU would likely defend it as the essential component of free speech that it is. The action at issue here is exactly that kind of private action.
manicdee 6y ago
Hypothetical Example — author of a new book exploring the rapid, massive increase in straight people self-identifying as gay and leaving heterosexual relationships — published an article in Breitbart describing the extraordinary efforts by major corporations and various activists to prevent her book being published. The issue here is that certain tomes present a particular issue from such a viewpoint that they lend themselves as ammunition to the people who hate what the book is about. So for example it is harmful to spread a one-eyed story about teenagers “self-identifying” as trans and undergoing surgery without pointing out that the surgery is the culmination of years of therapy and introspection, or suggesting that coming out as trans is not related to changes in societal acceptance of trans people (they feel safer to come out because they see other people doing it and not being stoned to death). So the book is basically right wing propaganda, rationalising their opinions about trans people and giving them the justification for publicly labelling trans people as trans, as opposed to just letting them be who they are. It doesn’t matter what the author’s intent was (though interviewing with Quillette suggests they have a dim view of trans people, despite being one herself — perhaps the other trans people aren’t real trans people in her mind because who would want to be a man? I have no idea). Because of the tone and the avoidance of relevant background material, the book harms the trans community. There are times when hearing both sides of an argument is productive, but when one side of an argument wants to deprive the other of human rights (eg through demonisation) then there’s no constructive argument to be had. There has to be a line where we say, “any discussion that crosses that line is not tolerated.” Any moderator of an Internet forum knows this: if you let discussions past a certain point they quickly get out of control and instead of just cautioning one person you’re stuck spending your evening banning accounts, deleting posts, posting apologies for letting things get out of hand, and most importantly losing a heap of your regulars who no longer feel this this forum is where they want to be. So to a lot of people, quisling propaganda like, “I am trans and I have this horrible story about fake trans people going through surgery when they really shouldn’t” is the same as those over-the-line not-quite-trolling conversations which 11 out of 10 times end up in flame wars and mass moderation. Which comes down to the tolerance paradox: in order to be tolerant, there are some things you can’t tolerate. If there is no line, then you are permissive rather than tolerant. If we accept that publicly demanding that someone or some group of people be murdered is a criminal act, then at some point we have to accept that speech that doesn’t directly call for the same is still as bad and shouldn’t be allowed. Sure, argue all you want for free speech purism, but you need to accept that some people will view murder as a necessary response to speech that they have heard. You may feel comfortable that you will never be murdered as a result of a call to action, but I am not. To me, a book that purports to expose some confected controversy about trans people (especially if presented as “from the trenches” reporting) is just as bad as a book that literally calls for the murder of trans people.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago

> Why, on this topic is it so often "shut up" rather than "here's why she's wrong..."? Because a certain (seemingly growing) contingent on the left views speech as violence and therefore will not engage in an argument, instead they'll try to make it so that the speech will never be said (resorting to violence, harassing the bureaucracy until they change institutional rules, etc.). One of the funnier phrases I saw recently that I think sums it up: "sticks and stones should break your bones, and words will always hurt me."

ouid 6y ago

What on earth does it mean to "out" a trans person? The whole point of transitioning is to be perceived differently. I can't hide my trans status from my parents or a school that I attended pre-transition. This is a totally disingenuous answer.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago
I don’t get it either. Because acceptance is not automatic. There will always be people who won’t accept you as you see yourself.. it is their right. Having said that.. As a counter example: as immigrants, we always get ‘where are you from originally’. One can’t be ‘outed’ as an immigrant. It is what it is. And so what? If I had to hide that I am an immigrant, then it would mean that I am ok with discrimination against those who choose to disclose or can’t hide that they are immigrants. It is a fear based position. The calls for suppression of truth comes from a place of fear. I have some compassion for those acting out of fear, but we cannot sacrifice rational means to find fixes to problems ..neither can we suppress freedom of expression. If trans people are discriminated against, we should tackle that phenomena of intolerance. We can’t pretend that trans people don’t exist and we can’t feed the paranoia..justified or not. The only way to figure out answers is to dig down deep to get the root of the issue. This is impossible if we are not allowed to talk about it.
- eesmith 6y ago
  > as immigrants, we always get ‘where are you from originally’. That question in the US usually means either 1) your accent is noticeably not American, or 2) you or your ancestors didn't come to the US from Europe or via the African diaspora. Native Americans get asked that question. Fourth-generation Chinese-Americans get asked that question. Puerto Ricans are asked that question. But a white friend of mine, born in the US to English parents, with no noticeable non-US accent, doesn't get asked that question. So "where are you from originally" comes across not about "immigrant" but about being "different" and even with an implication of being a second-class citizen. See for example the opinions given at https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/08/opinion/where-im-really-from/ https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/08/opinion/where-im... . Quoting Samantha Geovjian Clarke, born in the US, raised in Portland, Oregon: > Sometimes I think they feel like it's more polite to ask ambiguously "where are you from?" or "what are you?" because they're afraid to say race, ethnicity, heritage or nationality – lots of white people don't even know the difference. But they end up being hurtful and displaying deep-seated biases about race by implying I'm not really from America if I'm brown, even though I was born here, or worse, implying that I'm not human because I'm brown (with the "what are you?" question). If the question "where are you from originally" and variants are interpreted by many as a sign of intolerance, and not simply one of curiosity - which it surely is for some! - then perhaps it's not a particularly effective counter-example? If you want to dig down deeper to get to the root of this specific issue, here are some resources which talk about it: "Everyday Racism: ‘Where Are You Really From?’" at https://theglobepost.com/2017/08 https://theglobepost.com/2017/08 , /10/everyday-racism/ ; "Is It Racist to Ask People Where They're From?" at https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/07/question-where-are-you-from-racist/373818/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/07/qu... ; and an essay more focused on examples of when that question is asked with racist overtones, "“Where Are You From?” Racial Microaggressions" at https://othersociologist.com/2017/07/15/where-are-you-from-racial-microaggressions/ https://othersociologist.com/2017/07/15/where-are-you-from-r... .

Yetanfou 6y ago

You can not find a reasonable explanation of why those who deem Shrier's book unworthy of existence because those who voice such opinions do not believe in dialogue or dialectic. They are the victim of a group hysteria which claims whatever opinions the group espouses - which can vary over time and more often than not contradict earlier held opinions - are the absolute truth which shall not be strayed from. Those who dare to dissent are excommunicated. In short, they are part of a cult, a secular religion with its own martyrs, its own saints and its own devils. It is as if the church of Scientology suddenly had gained mass adherence and started espousing its value system on society.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Sincerely, can someone direct me to a calm, low jargon explanation that I might be able to grasp on why there seems to be a full court press to suppress rather than refute this narrative? Because it is essentially an ideological interpretive framework, not an empirical claim; the contentious part of it is not subject to falsification, so it cannot be refuted. > What is dangerous about viewing this trend as a social contagion There are two parts to viewing it as a “social contagion": (1) A negative value judgement, and (2) An empirical claim that it is a social phenomenon. #2 is not contentious, literally no one disputes that both social and personal acceptance of trans identity is a social phenomenon. So what's the contentious part? A value judgement. It's not subject to refutation. > Is that an argument that an ACLU lawyer would accept for other contentious issues, like abortion or gun control? That it's a hot legislative issue and therefore wrongthink on that subject should be suppressed? The ACLU has never opposed private action to oppose and discourage publication or distribution of views that a private actor views as unwelcome, in fact, were there state action to suppress such private action, the ACLU would likely defend it as the essential component of free speech that it is. The action at issue here is exactly that kind of private action.

manicdee 6y ago

Hypothetical Example — author of a new book exploring the rapid, massive increase in straight people self-identifying as gay and leaving heterosexual relationships — published an article in Breitbart describing the extraordinary efforts by major corporations and various activists to prevent her book being published. The issue here is that certain tomes present a particular issue from such a viewpoint that they lend themselves as ammunition to the people who hate what the book is about. So for example it is harmful to spread a one-eyed story about teenagers “self-identifying” as trans and undergoing surgery without pointing out that the surgery is the culmination of years of therapy and introspection, or suggesting that coming out as trans is not related to changes in societal acceptance of trans people (they feel safer to come out because they see other people doing it and not being stoned to death). So the book is basically right wing propaganda, rationalising their opinions about trans people and giving them the justification for publicly labelling trans people as trans, as opposed to just letting them be who they are. It doesn’t matter what the author’s intent was (though interviewing with Quillette suggests they have a dim view of trans people, despite being one herself — perhaps the other trans people aren’t real trans people in her mind because who would want to be a man? I have no idea). Because of the tone and the avoidance of relevant background material, the book harms the trans community. There are times when hearing both sides of an argument is productive, but when one side of an argument wants to deprive the other of human rights (eg through demonisation) then there’s no constructive argument to be had. There has to be a line where we say, “any discussion that crosses that line is not tolerated.” Any moderator of an Internet forum knows this: if you let discussions past a certain point they quickly get out of control and instead of just cautioning one person you’re stuck spending your evening banning accounts, deleting posts, posting apologies for letting things get out of hand, and most importantly losing a heap of your regulars who no longer feel this this forum is where they want to be. So to a lot of people, quisling propaganda like, “I am trans and I have this horrible story about fake trans people going through surgery when they really shouldn’t” is the same as those over-the-line not-quite-trolling conversations which 11 out of 10 times end up in flame wars and mass moderation. Which comes down to the tolerance paradox: in order to be tolerant, there are some things you can’t tolerate. If there is no line, then you are permissive rather than tolerant. If we accept that publicly demanding that someone or some group of people be murdered is a criminal act, then at some point we have to accept that speech that doesn’t directly call for the same is still as bad and shouldn’t be allowed. Sure, argue all you want for free speech purism, but you need to accept that some people will view murder as a necessary response to speech that they have heard. You may feel comfortable that you will never be murdered as a result of a call to action, but I am not. To me, a book that purports to expose some confected controversy about trans people (especially if presented as “from the trenches” reporting) is just as bad as a book that literally calls for the murder of trans people.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]