I've been pondering the origins of 'transgenderism' as a socially / politically influential lobby and that was a very useful essay. In a couple of paragraphs you've managed to focus my thinking.
It's the 'marketisation' of rebellion, the 'profitisation' of progress, the capitalisation of change. Of course it's inevitable, companies and market sectors spend significant resource looking for the next potential money maker and then marketing and exploiting it. But why should the 'liberals' / 'left' fall so heavily for it when it's so obvious that it's capitalism and 'the patriarchy' writ large? The fact that it's so destructive (both individually and socially) is a feature not a bug for the purveyors - every rebuild / repair / revision is a new opportunity.
So many of us have been ranting for years about how regressive this supposedly progressive movement is, you've helped me think more about why.
The book Cynical Theories by James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose surveys the origins of trans activism and other "critical theory" or "woke" social sciences. Yes, you're right that trans activism is being monetized now in various ways, but it has origins among activist teachers at universities, academics jaded by the failures of Marxism and frustration with liberalism. Trans activism is linked to the academic field of Queer Theory, which wants everything to be ambiguous and sees stable definitions as oppressive. It rejects the scientific method and any notion of material reality as "just another narrative". It has roots in the philosophy of Michele Foucault and Jacques Derrida who believed that simply changing language changes reality. However, in reality, words are just a symbol. They signify a structure. Changing the word, or our perception of it, doesn't change the structure. I'll over-generalize, but we're left with a political movement that rejects evidence-based approaches because it believes they're oppressive. What we're left with is a mob of activists rejecting reason and thinking real world problems can be solved with language games, with doubling down on passion devoid of evidence. There's also a weird phenomenon of people thinking of themselves as identity groups, not unique individuals. That's why trans activists have an almost zombie-like conformity to their ideology. They think they're on the "right side of history". In reality, their methods are a hot mess and are hurting women, children, and are even setting up an unfortunate backlash to transexuals of whom they're supposedly helping as a primary goal.
I've only just started Cynical Theories which I expect will join some more dots for me.
I think my own way of thinking just wants to contain all of it in a neat Mind Map!!
I'm coming to the way of thinking that a lot of powerful opportunist individuals have been involved in very successfully exploiting what might otherwise have been a minor and largely transitory social movement which could never otherwise have achieved the global impact it has. There's also a 'perfect storm' aspect to it - all sorts of elements aligning to create the otherwise impossible.
So well said! Are you familiar with Jennifer Bilek's work? Her website is chock full of critiques along the lines you've written here. Highly recommend it: https://www.the11thhourblog.com/
I am. JB's blog was one of the first things I found after I realised there was something 'wrong' going on that needed taking seriously. It feels like a long time ago!
A difficulty I have with discussing the whole transgender cult is how hard it is to articulate the big picture - I'm a very holistic person and I get frustrated when I can't see the whole and when I can't describe it.
I've realised instinctively why this is - it's the dissonances, the jarring mismatches, the trying to do addition in two different number systems at once, all coupled with the multiplicity of directions of attack - children, women's rights, science, reality, language, law etc.
Shannon's essay struck a chord with me because it drilled into one of the dissonances.
I noticed both you and the article's author use the word 'capitalism' in a negative context. I always cringe when I see it used in this manner because (imo) it's not true capitalism that is the problem; it's actually the greed that has transformed it into the crony/predatory version it is today. Pure, unfettered, free-market capitalism is actually a force for good; even if it's been pushed out of existence by greed and corruption, sadly.
Okay. That's just how it came across to me, in terms of how it's used in this sentence: "The 'medical-industrial complex' is indeed a large, old, moneyed institution, in bed with government and motivated by capitalism."
To me, that paints capitalism in a negative light. Perhaps it would've been more accurate to say "predatory capitalism" or even "profit-driven capitalism" (since profit isn't the only motivator in a free-market system).
Sorry to be nit-picky. I'm an editor, so it comes with the territory. Nevertheless, I very much enjoyed the piece, and agree with most of it. So much so, I shared it on Facebook.
I used it solely in respect of denoting a system where profit is an (if not the) overriding motive for an organisation or process. Some may view that as negative, some as positive. If you reread my comment it made the point that the left typically decry capitalism but have been (hypocritically?) willing to ignore the profit motive of many of those pushing transgenderism.
Brilliant piece. I am a boomer on the younger side, but all the points made connect to us lefties and liberals pre-GenX. The entire last paragraph is SUCH a critical message in this moment. Maybe someone who tweets could put this out there with the article? If you remove the (fantastic) final sentence, it's under 280 and still makes the point.
"Technology changes constantly. It takes careful thought to evaluate what’s progress and what’s degradation. What’s advancing the betterment of humankind and what’s making someone a quick buck. To get to compassionate solutions to complex problems, we need to be able to talk about things, openly and honestly. We can no longer treat our political parties as vending machines designed to dispense our opinions for us."
I believe the answer to the question about what appears to be liberal hypocrisy (you phrased it as "what is it") is simpler than many would like to believe.
It's a difference between two basic personality dispositions:
1. Those more inclined to feel personally like victims, and who want personally to be taken care of (by mom, by the state, by the medical industry), and who therefore extend this as a "moral duty" on others to "take care of other people."
2. Those more inclined to choose being responsible primarily for one's self, and who see practical help to others in the form of helping them become self-sufficient. This includes being willing to walk away and do nothing for people who refused to help themselves and who still demand to be "cared for."
"It started because we care about the gays, and trans seemed gay. Because the average normie doesn’t really understand the LGB, much less the T. Because the first transsexuals we knew were gay men and drag queens. Because we think a femme man is a femme man. Because trans people said they were adjacent to gays, even if many of them don’t seem to be."
Thank you! As far as I am concerned, the new gender-identity theory doesn't look anything like the gay rights movement of which I was a part. We tried to knock down the walls of gender stereotyping, not add another row of bricks. We understood you could be butch or femme and still be either a man or a woman--all combinations worked. Now, you dare not be a boy who likes pink or a girl who plays football without everyone asking your pronouns or offering hormones.
I sometimes think all this focus on identity is really just a way to escape from the reality that what we do is usually more important than what we are.
Those of us who used to be married to men who disappeared down the cross-dressing rabbit hole understand how sexist and demeaning behavior towards the wife is validated by the therapy industry, in their "affirmation corporation." Think how odd it was for me to have my attorney lecturing me, that I must wear some make-up to the court date with Neddy, my ex who started identifying as me, the mother of our 2 sons! For a time, doctors and therapists urged, cajoled and insisted that I must get on anti-depressants, as my PTSD symptoms would be "less intense." They weren't, and I found I could not remember my Kindergarten students' names. I stopped taking the pills and scheduled exercise and stretching. Also, Shannon, you are remarkably modest, to refrain from listing your memoir, 18 Months here! I link my commentary on your Megan Murphy interview below:
Exactly what is progress, anyway? Surely it is a personal perception. If it's anything new and shocking that is alluing simply on that basis, then it seems a recipe for disaster. No thought, common sense, analysis or concern for predictable consequences, too often more ignored than unintended. This appears to be the case now as the attractions become more and more bizarre, and harmful. There always money to be made from any fad, both of which are enough to upend old positions. We are becoming unhinged and untethered. Is that progress?
The 'progressive' label seems to have morphed from an implication of value in change, of moving forward, to simply denote change for the sake of not standing still.
I’ve been thinking about this in the context of hyper-novelty--a concept I was introduced to by the DarkHorse Podcast (Bret Weinstein/Heather Heying).
I get the sense that these days so-called “Progressives” are actually just champions of hyper-novelty. New/novel now equates with Social Good, and so change for its own sake is now the “moral” path simple because past changes have provided good results.
There is a conspicuous inability of many hyper-novelists to acknowledge the harmful consequences accruing downstream of all this newness and change. And so here we are in a society where suddenly anyone NOT championing change as presumptively good is a “far Right” regressive...a message bought and paid for by those old reliable arbiters of morality: the multinational corporations.
Very interesting. I can see exactly that 'change = moral good' assumption in so much of what's happening. I read an interesting commentary the other day arguing that capitalism and consumerism IS the new left and this feeds nicely into it. The 'progressives' can't see that they are the ones in thrall to those market behemoths and forces they supposedly despise.
"When my transgender ex-husband Jamie and I were still married, we were friends with an unshaven, soy-eating vegan couple who decried factory farming, the institution of marriage and other bastions of “capitalist patriarchy.” A frugal couple, they grew their own food and made their own lotion, disparagingly referring to Whole Foods as “Whole Paycheck” and Starbucks as “Sixbucks.” Willow eschewed makeup and spun her own wool for knitting."
Some confusion here: Vegans don't decry "factory farming;" they decry *all* exploitation of animals. And vegans most definitely do not use wool, home-spun or otherwise. Veganism isn't a diet; it's the avoidance of all animal products to the extent possible and practicable, including wool.
Notwithstanding that the people referred to here are NOT vegan as shown by their use of wool (and who knows what other animal products?)— "unshaven, soy-eating"? This is clearly attempting to draw on and reinforce negative stereotypes regarding vegans and veganism. So misdirected, unnecessary and backward considering all we know in 2023 about the benefits of veganism for human health and the environment and the fact that veganism is a moral imperative for anyone who recognises animals as sentient beings and not just things or replaceable resources.
Aside from the unfortunate opening, I appreciated this insightful essay exposing the contradictions that are typically ignored by many of those who regard themselves as progressive. And I agree wholeheartedly with the conclusion:
"Technology changes constantly. It takes careful thought to evaluate what’s progress and what’s degradation. What’s advancing the betterment of humankind and what’s making someone a quick buck. To get to compassionate solutions to complex problems, we need to be able to talk about things, openly and honestly. We can no longer treat our political parties as vending machines designed to dispense our opinions for us."
Indeed, it's been disappointing and quite shocking for me to see the extent to which lazy, conformist, uncritical, cowardly and tribalist thinking (non-thinking) has dominated the so-called "progressive" and "left-wing" cohort, who seem to have fallen into the trap of confusing the new with the progressive, as starkly shown in the acceptance and quasi-religious/cultish celebration of gender ideology, a most regressive and damaging social trend.
I am describing an actual couple here, and their actual stated views; it's entirely likely that they held inconsistent ones. In fact, their inconsistency is part of the point--as you see at the end of my memoir, Red ends up transitioning, which I find baffling in light of his views. Frankly, I admired the couple, including their decision not to shave and their critique of marriage (I am a liberal myself, who shares many of their views). This is not intended to sew negative stereotypes, but to illustrate how far progressives sometimes stray from their stated values when faced with the transgender question.
In any case, thanks for your engagement with the article, and your compliments on the rest of it.
Let me advance a rather oddball theory. If you are familiar with the curve of population against time in a fixed-resource culture, say, bacterial colonies in a petri dish, you will be familiar with the exponential growth, slowing down as resources dwindle and waste-products accumulate, eventually leading to a slight reduction in population then a catastrophic crash. Well, what would that look like if we consider ourselves in the situation of those bacteria? We know that over-crowding and stress cause a rise in non-functional behaviours (self-injury, homosexuality - no offense to gay people who were always that way!, paraphilias, aggressive behaviours etc) in both animal populations (eg pigs in a factory farm) or humans in an artificial environment such as a crowded prison.
Seen in that light, perhaps some of the odd behaviours we see, especially those that prevent reproduction - asexuality, transgenderism, homosexuality, bizarre genders - might fit in with where we are on that curve. Likewise, we delay having children and have fewer of them as economic conditions get harsher. We may be at the stage of population contraction and perhaps these are parts of the mechanism. Maybe all we can do is to sit back and marvel as we watch nature in action? There is a temporary fix that briefly makes us appear to be further back on the curve, and that's to stimulate population growth via immigration, and although that works in the short term, it makes things worse in the long run. Exciting times!
There should be a warning attached to Shannon’s memoir: DO NOT START READING AT BEDTIME! I made the mistake of doing so and couldn’t put it down. Can’t remember the last time I felt compelled to read throughout the night. Schedule it for a leisurely Saturday or Sunday afternoon, you’ll thank me later. (But do read it!)
This was really interesting. It's a question I've thought about a little, but beyond the growing societal need to Support The Current Thing or face cancellation, hadn't made sense of it yet. Identifying as ill, rather than just getting illnesses, bridges a gap in conceptual understanding. After that change is made, then even questioning the thing that the ill-identifiers claim helps them, is easily seen as hate speech.
Of course then we have to go back and figure out why people started identifying as ill, valorizing mental illness, in droves. Social media spreads it, but why did it take root in the 1st place? My guess is: As wealth grew - survival and even basic comfort became no longer a pressing daily concern, so capacity to have compassion for 'the marginalized' grew, as we no longer needed to be preoccupied with our next meal. Over time, it was a simple incentive game for more and more people to figure out a way to identify as 'marginalized,' and get special treatment.
I'm sure even if correct, this is only part of the story, but it's a start - at least for thought.
Excellent! It's incredibly difficult to have these conversations with people today. As someone who identifies as leftist I've seen so many people drift from their principles, independent thinking and common sense. Most people I know who opposed the heavy handed mandates weren't right wing. They were Anarchists. This is the difficult conflict within the left spectrum. Whether it's Ukraine, Covid or transgender rights and policies as current topics of conversation there is no room for nuanced discourse. As someone who's grown up with trans and non-binary friends my whole life I am always going to respect people's gender identities. I am concerned about how current changes in policies and laws affect women's rights and privacy. If you even question the speed at which things are changing you're a TERF or transphobic. Which myself and other's, even older fully transitioned friends have concerns about. Again there's no room for rational discussions about this issue. If you question the mandates you're branded right-wing or anti-vaxx. Which again, many of my friends who question this are not. I worked in mental health and yes there is definitely over prescribing and many incorrect diagnoses. But again, sigh, you can't discuss this with many people. I won't get into Ukraine except again the left and so-called progressives have completely flipped on anti neoconservative foreign policy. I don't recognize the left anymore. We're living in strange times indeed. Appreciate you're content as always.
100% agree. As someone who's always considered myself progressive, liberal and left-leaning, it's been horrifying to witness those ideological groups/movements shun their original values and morals, moving so far left they've fallen off the ideological spectrum altogether. As such, I now call myself a classical liberal/progressive.
As I've gotten older I have resisted labeling myself. I do it only as reference to what people would consider my political leanings. I prefer to consider myself independent and my views borrow from socialism, Anarchism, libertarian communism, left libertarianism, moderate conservativism and apolitical neutrality. If we abandon these either/or false dichotomies and work to find common ground removed from identitarianism/identity politics we might get closer to consensus based form of government.
Agreed. I'm not fond of labels either, especially since their definitions keep changing; it's hard to keep up. At one point I tried giving them up, but found it took too much time and effort to explain my views. Since I renounced the 2-party duopoly, it's easy enough to tell people I'm politically independent (although that's a label, too), but it's much more effort to explain my ideological views without using labels. Life's too short. ;)
One of these things is not like the other, COVID, Ukraine, trans
That’s a trick statement, none of these are alike. COVID is a virus and politicizing vaccines is ignorant. Ukraine is being invaded by Russia which has declared intentions of retaking what thr USSR lost.
trans is far worse that than just medicalizing mental health issues. It’s practically a new religion with weird spiritual beliefs in addition to genuinely evil sexual perversion
In closing, I am triple boosted and will continue to get vaxxed. I favor stomping Russia into a mud hole and walking it dry and I oppose any and all of the weird medical experiments and surgical procedures associated with trans. Trans is a problem between the ears not between the legs
No, there isn't a "trick statement." You will have to accept that many of us genuinely believe, contra you, that "Covid" was overblown. We, unlike you, do actually believe the vaccines are unnecessary for most, we reasonably suspect them of not being as safe as they should, and we're not stupid, ignorant, or partisan for declining them and the boosters.
I know it pleases more to be able to say "Nuh uh you're not rational because you don't like this one thing that I am sure is best," but you can't. Sorry.
"Politicizing vaccines is ignorant" is the equivalent of "the mask is an IQ test." Both statements accurate but for the opposite of why some believe them to be.
You’re dead wrong, seriously get out of the pathetic little bubble you live in. Vaccination and immunization is fairly old technology with the only differences being the nature of the vaccine itself. All the objections have the same roots in superstitions perpetuated by snake oil peddlers or in the modern time “supplements “ and a few modern medicines that they lie about being effective.
I think what the author was getting at is the common denominator in all 3 issues - government (and by extension, media) deception, for the ultimate purpose of manufacturing consent of the masses. Many fell for all 3, some for 1 or 2, and some of us for 0. It appears you fell for 2 of the 3.
That schizoid relationship with medicine is typical of esotericism. Liberal religion has dispensed with all the hard Christianity, leaving only gnosis. Medicine offers both peril to the soul and a promise of salvation. Squishy, liberal belief allows both to exist. Individual dissonance resolves in whichever direction has the most depth of personal conviction.
The two people least likely to fall for woo are the hard believer in a religious orthodoxy and the hard atheist. "Neither hot nor cold, I spit you out of my mouth."
"Now liberals, once worried about government intrusion into our bodies and bedrooms, lead the support for Covid vaccines and mandates. Is that because mRNA feels like a progressive technology? Is it a commitment to class consciousness over individualism? Is it because we can no longer tease out when and why we support medical advancements? It’s no longer clear."
It's a similar phenomena to regulatory capture, only its social media driven, possibly because of regulatory capture promoting massive psyops via social media. "Full spectrum dominance" only in the opinion making realm. Asking that question relative to the trans, body positivity, and pro pharma phenomenas is revelatory of a mechanism or strategy that keeps being played on us all, and appears to be a crass attempt at eugenics in both Covid itself and the mrna vaccines. Although each one of the four has population control effects. Each was marketed to rebellious people as the next problem to be confronted and whoa/hey here we are. I'm the dinosaur Gen xer who doubled down on autarky seeing how unmoored everything has become. I remember a lot of anti breeder sentiment in the late 90s and this may be the group from my generation in charge now.
I'm a little late to this piece and haven't read the comments yet, but wanted to let you know that One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest criticized electroshock treatment (ECT), not lobotomy.
But speaking of lobotomy, if we actually survive this insanity as a culture and a nation, in 20-40 years we'll look back at transgender chemical and surgical treatments the way we now view lobotomies. "What were they thinking?"
Thanks. There's much food for thought here.
I've been pondering the origins of 'transgenderism' as a socially / politically influential lobby and that was a very useful essay. In a couple of paragraphs you've managed to focus my thinking.
It's the 'marketisation' of rebellion, the 'profitisation' of progress, the capitalisation of change. Of course it's inevitable, companies and market sectors spend significant resource looking for the next potential money maker and then marketing and exploiting it. But why should the 'liberals' / 'left' fall so heavily for it when it's so obvious that it's capitalism and 'the patriarchy' writ large? The fact that it's so destructive (both individually and socially) is a feature not a bug for the purveyors - every rebuild / repair / revision is a new opportunity.
So many of us have been ranting for years about how regressive this supposedly progressive movement is, you've helped me think more about why.
The book Cynical Theories by James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose surveys the origins of trans activism and other "critical theory" or "woke" social sciences. Yes, you're right that trans activism is being monetized now in various ways, but it has origins among activist teachers at universities, academics jaded by the failures of Marxism and frustration with liberalism. Trans activism is linked to the academic field of Queer Theory, which wants everything to be ambiguous and sees stable definitions as oppressive. It rejects the scientific method and any notion of material reality as "just another narrative". It has roots in the philosophy of Michele Foucault and Jacques Derrida who believed that simply changing language changes reality. However, in reality, words are just a symbol. They signify a structure. Changing the word, or our perception of it, doesn't change the structure. I'll over-generalize, but we're left with a political movement that rejects evidence-based approaches because it believes they're oppressive. What we're left with is a mob of activists rejecting reason and thinking real world problems can be solved with language games, with doubling down on passion devoid of evidence. There's also a weird phenomenon of people thinking of themselves as identity groups, not unique individuals. That's why trans activists have an almost zombie-like conformity to their ideology. They think they're on the "right side of history". In reality, their methods are a hot mess and are hurting women, children, and are even setting up an unfortunate backlash to transexuals of whom they're supposedly helping as a primary goal.
Thanks Ben.
I've only just started Cynical Theories which I expect will join some more dots for me.
I think my own way of thinking just wants to contain all of it in a neat Mind Map!!
I'm coming to the way of thinking that a lot of powerful opportunist individuals have been involved in very successfully exploiting what might otherwise have been a minor and largely transitory social movement which could never otherwise have achieved the global impact it has. There's also a 'perfect storm' aspect to it - all sorts of elements aligning to create the otherwise impossible.
So well said! Are you familiar with Jennifer Bilek's work? Her website is chock full of critiques along the lines you've written here. Highly recommend it: https://www.the11thhourblog.com/
I am. JB's blog was one of the first things I found after I realised there was something 'wrong' going on that needed taking seriously. It feels like a long time ago!
A difficulty I have with discussing the whole transgender cult is how hard it is to articulate the big picture - I'm a very holistic person and I get frustrated when I can't see the whole and when I can't describe it.
I've realised instinctively why this is - it's the dissonances, the jarring mismatches, the trying to do addition in two different number systems at once, all coupled with the multiplicity of directions of attack - children, women's rights, science, reality, language, law etc.
Shannon's essay struck a chord with me because it drilled into one of the dissonances.
I noticed both you and the article's author use the word 'capitalism' in a negative context. I always cringe when I see it used in this manner because (imo) it's not true capitalism that is the problem; it's actually the greed that has transformed it into the crony/predatory version it is today. Pure, unfettered, free-market capitalism is actually a force for good; even if it's been pushed out of existence by greed and corruption, sadly.
I didn't use the word negatively, and I'm not anti-capitalist.
Okay. That's just how it came across to me, in terms of how it's used in this sentence: "The 'medical-industrial complex' is indeed a large, old, moneyed institution, in bed with government and motivated by capitalism."
To me, that paints capitalism in a negative light. Perhaps it would've been more accurate to say "predatory capitalism" or even "profit-driven capitalism" (since profit isn't the only motivator in a free-market system).
Sorry to be nit-picky. I'm an editor, so it comes with the territory. Nevertheless, I very much enjoyed the piece, and agree with most of it. So much so, I shared it on Facebook.
I used it solely in respect of denoting a system where profit is an (if not the) overriding motive for an organisation or process. Some may view that as negative, some as positive. If you reread my comment it made the point that the left typically decry capitalism but have been (hypocritically?) willing to ignore the profit motive of many of those pushing transgenderism.
Brilliant piece. I am a boomer on the younger side, but all the points made connect to us lefties and liberals pre-GenX. The entire last paragraph is SUCH a critical message in this moment. Maybe someone who tweets could put this out there with the article? If you remove the (fantastic) final sentence, it's under 280 and still makes the point.
"Technology changes constantly. It takes careful thought to evaluate what’s progress and what’s degradation. What’s advancing the betterment of humankind and what’s making someone a quick buck. To get to compassionate solutions to complex problems, we need to be able to talk about things, openly and honestly. We can no longer treat our political parties as vending machines designed to dispense our opinions for us."
Wonderful essay.
I believe the answer to the question about what appears to be liberal hypocrisy (you phrased it as "what is it") is simpler than many would like to believe.
It's a difference between two basic personality dispositions:
1. Those more inclined to feel personally like victims, and who want personally to be taken care of (by mom, by the state, by the medical industry), and who therefore extend this as a "moral duty" on others to "take care of other people."
2. Those more inclined to choose being responsible primarily for one's self, and who see practical help to others in the form of helping them become self-sufficient. This includes being willing to walk away and do nothing for people who refused to help themselves and who still demand to be "cared for."
Teach a man to fish.
"It started because we care about the gays, and trans seemed gay. Because the average normie doesn’t really understand the LGB, much less the T. Because the first transsexuals we knew were gay men and drag queens. Because we think a femme man is a femme man. Because trans people said they were adjacent to gays, even if many of them don’t seem to be."
Thank you! As far as I am concerned, the new gender-identity theory doesn't look anything like the gay rights movement of which I was a part. We tried to knock down the walls of gender stereotyping, not add another row of bricks. We understood you could be butch or femme and still be either a man or a woman--all combinations worked. Now, you dare not be a boy who likes pink or a girl who plays football without everyone asking your pronouns or offering hormones.
I sometimes think all this focus on identity is really just a way to escape from the reality that what we do is usually more important than what we are.
I've written about that too! Doing versus being
https://shannonthrace.substack.com/p/identity-and-doing-versus-being?utm_source=%2Fsearch%2Fbeing&utm_medium=reader2
And yes to knocking down the walls.
Those of us who used to be married to men who disappeared down the cross-dressing rabbit hole understand how sexist and demeaning behavior towards the wife is validated by the therapy industry, in their "affirmation corporation." Think how odd it was for me to have my attorney lecturing me, that I must wear some make-up to the court date with Neddy, my ex who started identifying as me, the mother of our 2 sons! For a time, doctors and therapists urged, cajoled and insisted that I must get on anti-depressants, as my PTSD symptoms would be "less intense." They weren't, and I found I could not remember my Kindergarten students' names. I stopped taking the pills and scheduled exercise and stretching. Also, Shannon, you are remarkably modest, to refrain from listing your memoir, 18 Months here! I link my commentary on your Megan Murphy interview below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOqCH3PeZTs&t=408s
Exactly what is progress, anyway? Surely it is a personal perception. If it's anything new and shocking that is alluing simply on that basis, then it seems a recipe for disaster. No thought, common sense, analysis or concern for predictable consequences, too often more ignored than unintended. This appears to be the case now as the attractions become more and more bizarre, and harmful. There always money to be made from any fad, both of which are enough to upend old positions. We are becoming unhinged and untethered. Is that progress?
The 'progressive' label seems to have morphed from an implication of value in change, of moving forward, to simply denote change for the sake of not standing still.
I’ve been thinking about this in the context of hyper-novelty--a concept I was introduced to by the DarkHorse Podcast (Bret Weinstein/Heather Heying).
I get the sense that these days so-called “Progressives” are actually just champions of hyper-novelty. New/novel now equates with Social Good, and so change for its own sake is now the “moral” path simple because past changes have provided good results.
There is a conspicuous inability of many hyper-novelists to acknowledge the harmful consequences accruing downstream of all this newness and change. And so here we are in a society where suddenly anyone NOT championing change as presumptively good is a “far Right” regressive...a message bought and paid for by those old reliable arbiters of morality: the multinational corporations.
Very interesting. I can see exactly that 'change = moral good' assumption in so much of what's happening. I read an interesting commentary the other day arguing that capitalism and consumerism IS the new left and this feeds nicely into it. The 'progressives' can't see that they are the ones in thrall to those market behemoths and forces they supposedly despise.
"When my transgender ex-husband Jamie and I were still married, we were friends with an unshaven, soy-eating vegan couple who decried factory farming, the institution of marriage and other bastions of “capitalist patriarchy.” A frugal couple, they grew their own food and made their own lotion, disparagingly referring to Whole Foods as “Whole Paycheck” and Starbucks as “Sixbucks.” Willow eschewed makeup and spun her own wool for knitting."
Some confusion here: Vegans don't decry "factory farming;" they decry *all* exploitation of animals. And vegans most definitely do not use wool, home-spun or otherwise. Veganism isn't a diet; it's the avoidance of all animal products to the extent possible and practicable, including wool.
Notwithstanding that the people referred to here are NOT vegan as shown by their use of wool (and who knows what other animal products?)— "unshaven, soy-eating"? This is clearly attempting to draw on and reinforce negative stereotypes regarding vegans and veganism. So misdirected, unnecessary and backward considering all we know in 2023 about the benefits of veganism for human health and the environment and the fact that veganism is a moral imperative for anyone who recognises animals as sentient beings and not just things or replaceable resources.
Aside from the unfortunate opening, I appreciated this insightful essay exposing the contradictions that are typically ignored by many of those who regard themselves as progressive. And I agree wholeheartedly with the conclusion:
"Technology changes constantly. It takes careful thought to evaluate what’s progress and what’s degradation. What’s advancing the betterment of humankind and what’s making someone a quick buck. To get to compassionate solutions to complex problems, we need to be able to talk about things, openly and honestly. We can no longer treat our political parties as vending machines designed to dispense our opinions for us."
Indeed, it's been disappointing and quite shocking for me to see the extent to which lazy, conformist, uncritical, cowardly and tribalist thinking (non-thinking) has dominated the so-called "progressive" and "left-wing" cohort, who seem to have fallen into the trap of confusing the new with the progressive, as starkly shown in the acceptance and quasi-religious/cultish celebration of gender ideology, a most regressive and damaging social trend.
I am describing an actual couple here, and their actual stated views; it's entirely likely that they held inconsistent ones. In fact, their inconsistency is part of the point--as you see at the end of my memoir, Red ends up transitioning, which I find baffling in light of his views. Frankly, I admired the couple, including their decision not to shave and their critique of marriage (I am a liberal myself, who shares many of their views). This is not intended to sew negative stereotypes, but to illustrate how far progressives sometimes stray from their stated values when faced with the transgender question.
In any case, thanks for your engagement with the article, and your compliments on the rest of it.
Also, I love this insight: "confusing the new with the progressive"
your final paragraph is inspirational
Let me advance a rather oddball theory. If you are familiar with the curve of population against time in a fixed-resource culture, say, bacterial colonies in a petri dish, you will be familiar with the exponential growth, slowing down as resources dwindle and waste-products accumulate, eventually leading to a slight reduction in population then a catastrophic crash. Well, what would that look like if we consider ourselves in the situation of those bacteria? We know that over-crowding and stress cause a rise in non-functional behaviours (self-injury, homosexuality - no offense to gay people who were always that way!, paraphilias, aggressive behaviours etc) in both animal populations (eg pigs in a factory farm) or humans in an artificial environment such as a crowded prison.
Seen in that light, perhaps some of the odd behaviours we see, especially those that prevent reproduction - asexuality, transgenderism, homosexuality, bizarre genders - might fit in with where we are on that curve. Likewise, we delay having children and have fewer of them as economic conditions get harsher. We may be at the stage of population contraction and perhaps these are parts of the mechanism. Maybe all we can do is to sit back and marvel as we watch nature in action? There is a temporary fix that briefly makes us appear to be further back on the curve, and that's to stimulate population growth via immigration, and although that works in the short term, it makes things worse in the long run. Exciting times!
This has crossed my mind, yes.
There should be a warning attached to Shannon’s memoir: DO NOT START READING AT BEDTIME! I made the mistake of doing so and couldn’t put it down. Can’t remember the last time I felt compelled to read throughout the night. Schedule it for a leisurely Saturday or Sunday afternoon, you’ll thank me later. (But do read it!)
You are too kind <3 <3 <3
This was really interesting. It's a question I've thought about a little, but beyond the growing societal need to Support The Current Thing or face cancellation, hadn't made sense of it yet. Identifying as ill, rather than just getting illnesses, bridges a gap in conceptual understanding. After that change is made, then even questioning the thing that the ill-identifiers claim helps them, is easily seen as hate speech.
Of course then we have to go back and figure out why people started identifying as ill, valorizing mental illness, in droves. Social media spreads it, but why did it take root in the 1st place? My guess is: As wealth grew - survival and even basic comfort became no longer a pressing daily concern, so capacity to have compassion for 'the marginalized' grew, as we no longer needed to be preoccupied with our next meal. Over time, it was a simple incentive game for more and more people to figure out a way to identify as 'marginalized,' and get special treatment.
I'm sure even if correct, this is only part of the story, but it's a start - at least for thought.
Excellent! It's incredibly difficult to have these conversations with people today. As someone who identifies as leftist I've seen so many people drift from their principles, independent thinking and common sense. Most people I know who opposed the heavy handed mandates weren't right wing. They were Anarchists. This is the difficult conflict within the left spectrum. Whether it's Ukraine, Covid or transgender rights and policies as current topics of conversation there is no room for nuanced discourse. As someone who's grown up with trans and non-binary friends my whole life I am always going to respect people's gender identities. I am concerned about how current changes in policies and laws affect women's rights and privacy. If you even question the speed at which things are changing you're a TERF or transphobic. Which myself and other's, even older fully transitioned friends have concerns about. Again there's no room for rational discussions about this issue. If you question the mandates you're branded right-wing or anti-vaxx. Which again, many of my friends who question this are not. I worked in mental health and yes there is definitely over prescribing and many incorrect diagnoses. But again, sigh, you can't discuss this with many people. I won't get into Ukraine except again the left and so-called progressives have completely flipped on anti neoconservative foreign policy. I don't recognize the left anymore. We're living in strange times indeed. Appreciate you're content as always.
100% agree. As someone who's always considered myself progressive, liberal and left-leaning, it's been horrifying to witness those ideological groups/movements shun their original values and morals, moving so far left they've fallen off the ideological spectrum altogether. As such, I now call myself a classical liberal/progressive.
As I've gotten older I have resisted labeling myself. I do it only as reference to what people would consider my political leanings. I prefer to consider myself independent and my views borrow from socialism, Anarchism, libertarian communism, left libertarianism, moderate conservativism and apolitical neutrality. If we abandon these either/or false dichotomies and work to find common ground removed from identitarianism/identity politics we might get closer to consensus based form of government.
Agreed. I'm not fond of labels either, especially since their definitions keep changing; it's hard to keep up. At one point I tried giving them up, but found it took too much time and effort to explain my views. Since I renounced the 2-party duopoly, it's easy enough to tell people I'm politically independent (although that's a label, too), but it's much more effort to explain my ideological views without using labels. Life's too short. ;)
One of these things is not like the other, COVID, Ukraine, trans
That’s a trick statement, none of these are alike. COVID is a virus and politicizing vaccines is ignorant. Ukraine is being invaded by Russia which has declared intentions of retaking what thr USSR lost.
trans is far worse that than just medicalizing mental health issues. It’s practically a new religion with weird spiritual beliefs in addition to genuinely evil sexual perversion
In closing, I am triple boosted and will continue to get vaxxed. I favor stomping Russia into a mud hole and walking it dry and I oppose any and all of the weird medical experiments and surgical procedures associated with trans. Trans is a problem between the ears not between the legs
No, there isn't a "trick statement." You will have to accept that many of us genuinely believe, contra you, that "Covid" was overblown. We, unlike you, do actually believe the vaccines are unnecessary for most, we reasonably suspect them of not being as safe as they should, and we're not stupid, ignorant, or partisan for declining them and the boosters.
I know it pleases more to be able to say "Nuh uh you're not rational because you don't like this one thing that I am sure is best," but you can't. Sorry.
I believe that you are gullible
And I believe that you are, Invisigoth.
OK.
"Politicizing vaccines is ignorant" is the equivalent of "the mask is an IQ test." Both statements accurate but for the opposite of why some believe them to be.
You’re dead wrong, seriously get out of the pathetic little bubble you live in. Vaccination and immunization is fairly old technology with the only differences being the nature of the vaccine itself. All the objections have the same roots in superstitions perpetuated by snake oil peddlers or in the modern time “supplements “ and a few modern medicines that they lie about being effective.
I think what the author was getting at is the common denominator in all 3 issues - government (and by extension, media) deception, for the ultimate purpose of manufacturing consent of the masses. Many fell for all 3, some for 1 or 2, and some of us for 0. It appears you fell for 2 of the 3.
I never mentioned Ukraine, so I'm not sure what either of you are getting at.
I was referring to the original commenter who mentioned Ukraine.
I would say that you fell for 2
That schizoid relationship with medicine is typical of esotericism. Liberal religion has dispensed with all the hard Christianity, leaving only gnosis. Medicine offers both peril to the soul and a promise of salvation. Squishy, liberal belief allows both to exist. Individual dissonance resolves in whichever direction has the most depth of personal conviction.
The two people least likely to fall for woo are the hard believer in a religious orthodoxy and the hard atheist. "Neither hot nor cold, I spit you out of my mouth."
I don't know if this is true, but I'm a hard atheist data point in its favor.
I'm two, let's build an empirical evidence base
"Now liberals, once worried about government intrusion into our bodies and bedrooms, lead the support for Covid vaccines and mandates. Is that because mRNA feels like a progressive technology? Is it a commitment to class consciousness over individualism? Is it because we can no longer tease out when and why we support medical advancements? It’s no longer clear."
It's a similar phenomena to regulatory capture, only its social media driven, possibly because of regulatory capture promoting massive psyops via social media. "Full spectrum dominance" only in the opinion making realm. Asking that question relative to the trans, body positivity, and pro pharma phenomenas is revelatory of a mechanism or strategy that keeps being played on us all, and appears to be a crass attempt at eugenics in both Covid itself and the mrna vaccines. Although each one of the four has population control effects. Each was marketed to rebellious people as the next problem to be confronted and whoa/hey here we are. I'm the dinosaur Gen xer who doubled down on autarky seeing how unmoored everything has become. I remember a lot of anti breeder sentiment in the late 90s and this may be the group from my generation in charge now.
I'm a little late to this piece and haven't read the comments yet, but wanted to let you know that One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest criticized electroshock treatment (ECT), not lobotomy.
McMurphy is lobotomized in the book. The movie doesn't necessarily make that clear.
I don't remember that from the book which I read almost a half-century ago but I distinctly remember the ECT in the movie.
But speaking of lobotomy, if we actually survive this insanity as a culture and a nation, in 20-40 years we'll look back at transgender chemical and surgical treatments the way we now view lobotomies. "What were they thinking?"