Jul 29·edited Jul 29Liked by Sheluyang Peng

"To take such a stance also requires ignoring the simple question of how, if gender isn’t determined by physical attributes, as trans activists say, why anyone would even need so-called “gender-affirming care” to begin with."

To understand this, you have to start here. All of what you say is true, that Singal as a "leftist" is a greater threat with questions, that this is cultlike and religious behavior.

But I'm coming to see it as something worse. It's a social psychosis, a break with reality. Gender dysphoria was, up until about ten minutes ago, seen as a mental health issue. If you cannot accept the reality of your physical body being male or female, I think we can all agree you have a few problems upstairs. Now does that mean I'm against "trans" people? No. I think you have every right to deal with your mental health issues as you please, when you're of the appropriate age. (That's key.) And if you get to be of a certain age, and nothing else works, by all means have all the surgeries you want to cosmetically imitate the opposite gender. I have no problem with you or that, and I'll call you whatever you happen to look like to me. I don't care.

But rather than suggest these people get help or just simply accept them as they are, we are supposed to break with our own genetic reality (that humans are sexually dimorphic, meaning much of our physicality is based on whether we have XX or XY DNA and we develop in very specific ways to either bear and nurture children for a decade or more until they are mature, or to provide for the one(s) that do the aforementioned). We are supposed to buy their "reality" that transgenderism is natural. That nature had no idea what it was doing. And that you're not mentally unhealthy if you lack the ability to accept something so basic and fundamental as your sex.

As a foundation of this so-called reality, we must pretend people are "born" that way, and that is why they drag the children into it. If no children were "gender dysphoric" or they grow out of their "gender dysphoria" as just a matter of maturity, what does that say about the "reality" the transgenderists are trying to make us validate? It says that it is all a matter of the mind, and a fundamentally unhealthy mind at that, that is threatening the health of the youngest among us to reinforce its own psychosis.

Again, this is not to say that I really care at all about how transgender people live their lives. I don't. But the reason we're seeing the backlash is that America is a live and let live society, and the transgender activists (if not transgender people themselves) are breaking that unspoken pact.

Expand full comment

The USA is at a fork in the road. The left fork leads to Mordor and death, the right fork to a hopeful future. I know life will always win in the end, but it was brought home to me recently just how much we are going to lose as we reach for the future. I had a phone conversation with a friend recently, one of the smartest people I know, and one sworn to support and defend the US Constitution. We talked about "trans" and I mentioned legislation has been passed in some locales that makes it possible to prosecute someone for not using "preferred pronouns." This friend implied she saw no problem with that, and in our conversation she was using all the platitudes and marketing slogans we hear from the left lunatics. I was speechless. The acolytes cannot be persuaded by past history, butchered children or the actions taken to destroy the US Constitution. I ended the conversation feeling as if I just lost a limb.

Expand full comment

Even for people who disagree with Singal’s ideas, it’s impressive that he’s friends with people in leftist circles but still confident enough to express a dissenting opinion even when he knows the backlash is coming. He’s not as susceptible to groupthink as most people.

It’s also notable that even pro-trans people are starting to see some of the extreme positions as pseudo-religious.

Expand full comment

“As my public presence grows, I expect to get quite a few threats myself, especially as I am not afraid to pen polemics on the sacred-est cows in our cultural landscape.” Given that violence and intimidation have become acceptable tools for a significant portion of trans activists, I appreciate your posts even more.

With the polls and surveys appearing to show weakening support for the most aggressive medical procedures for minors, one can only hope that more people begin to look past minors and see how the modern form of trans activism is impacting gay rights and women’s rights.

Expand full comment

Nice work, Yang. But did you need more evidence that these people are entirely crazy and deluded and that the "trans" movement is based on lies and patent child abuse? It may be long past time to start re-opening the state lunatic asylums and filling them with progressive maniacs.

Expand full comment

“The difference between fact and truth...”.

And they want to be taken seriously?

Expand full comment

In my household (all two of us) we call this the "Starbucks effect."

Starbucks, being a company with a progressive image, provides generous benefits to its employees in basically every possible way, more so than just about any other company employing more-or-less unskilled workers. They offer great health care, excellent leave, excellent accommodations for disability & mental health. And yet, Starbucks still seems to incur a lot more strikes & protests by its employees than equivalent business (for example, Dunkin' Donuts).

This is because, if you try to organize a strike at Dunkin' Donuts, you'll just get fired. No matter how righteously you demand higher pay & more benefits for your co-workers, Dunkin' will just say "No." This is because Dunkin' is not a company with a progressive image to protect. Starbucks, on the other hand, has to treat its very special employees with extreme delicacy, because it wants to maintain its image as a progressive company.

This is more than an image concern, because Starbucks customers are probably a lot more likely than Dunkin' customers to actually act on a progressive-sphere boycott. The difference may be only 3% vs 1% but that's a big margin when you're a big company.

So Starbucks - like Jesse Singal - has by virtue of its progressive affiliation made itself a whipping post for progressives with an axe to grind, or rather a whip to, er, oil? crack? Either way, you get the point....

The same logic sort of holds for companies with broadly conservative customers - Bud Light stepped in it when they promoted Dylan Mulvaney, and there was whatever happened with those foam coolers conservatives were smashing a few years ago. But it's not really in the same ballpark, because broadly conservative customers & employees aren't likely to make normative demands of their workplaces & favorite brands compared to progressives.

(This is partially why a lot of auto manufacturing moved to Southern states - more favorable regulatory environment as a result of a conservative voter base, but also a worker base much less inclined to unionize. I think auto unions are quite a reasonable proposal, as it's a dangerous & exhausting job requiring much expertise and deserving of security & protections, so I frown on this particular corporate practice although I understand its economic benefits. A union for Starbucks employees on the other hand....I don't consider quite as convincing. Having barista'd myself, while a hot coffee burn can hurt, and six hours on your feet hurts too, it's not really in the same ballpark as decapitation by robotic assembler or alveolar chlorosis from PVC exposure.)

Expand full comment