An essay I wrote with Helen Pluckrose. I'm very interested in this Venn Diagram that I worked with Christina Buttons to design. I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this and on the essay.
Hi Stella, I just want to offer a few thoughts as a mom. If it matters, I’m a gen-Xer and have a FtM daughter.
I was at your conference in Colorado. It was amazing, and I was extremely dismayed by the controversy that erupted - on social media - afterwards. If Phil’s presence was an affront to anyone at the conference, I didn’t notice. My sense was that there was a feeling on the ground of having bigger fish to fry.
I really appreciate your essay and I can easily see and situate myself within the ideological frameworks that you describe here.
TBH, I’ve never really considered myself a feminist. I’m grateful for the gains made over many decades for reproductive choices, job opportunities, etc. But I guess in recent years in particular I felt bothered or even alienated by what I perceive to be some of the more strident aspects.
Of course, seeing the TRAs run roughshod over women’s private spaces and women’s sports over the last few years has made me reconsider my reticent feminism. I’m middle aged now, and for the first time in my life, I’ve joined women’s rights groups. That said, I agree that Genspect should not strictly consider itself a women’s right group.
On the other side, I’m like most other left-leaning liberal Canadian folks. Hubby and I don’t care if (20yo) daughter is a lesbian. Any yet. Here she is insisting that she’s always had a boy brain and needs to transition. In my household there is no obligation around girls having to do this or that, no being forced to wear dresses or cook the food.
But TBH, having been put through the wringer the last five years, I think wistfully of the social conservatives that you mention. And in the dead of the night, I lie awake asking myself, what if I had made her wear a dress that time, do her hair? Put on some pretty shoes? Would she have found some joy in a simple act? Would that have been enough to tether her to being female? Would it have eased her over the rough patches of adolescence?
All that to say, I really appreciate the thoughtful approach you’ve laid out here, especially your determination to stick to truly Liberal values. It feels like this approach is getting to be a rarity, and that’s a shame.
I still believe in people with different points of view of view coming together for a greater good.
I want kids to have to freedom to grow up to be gay or lesbian. I want the MtF boys to get help, too. Stella, my heart breaks for the moms and dads of boys trapped in this hell. It’s so complicated for them. Genspect makes me feel less alone in the world. You have given me a sense of community and hope. Families of MtFs need the same. If that means I need to sit next to a guy in a dress at the next Genspect conference, so be it.
Again, thank you for this Stella.
About the Venn diagram, I wish I could get a better view. On my phone, it’s a tiny thumbnail. And it doesn’t show anywhere else on the post when I open it.
I agree, it is much better for Genspect to stay non-biased, non-partisan, and inclusive, because that is how they will invite more people to participate, and keeping this stance will have a farther reach and help many more people.
I’m so pleased to read this. If it were up to me, I’d do away with the belief buckets ”gender critical, social conservative” altogether. People are free to say what they think they are, but even within categories, there are a range of opinions. We are in a unique and unprecedented (as far as I can tell) period that demands we really think about beliefs we take for granted, whether that is about things we assume to be true, or about the motives and beliefs of other people. In my own work I have had to reexamine my beliefs many times on the basis of evidence, thought and discussion with others. It’s humbling but I know that I stand on a much firmer foundation as a result.
Genspect has the potential to create a firm foundation for understanding gender in the current period. I believe it will go a lot better if we abandon the labels, our own and those we apply to others, and look at gender and sex with rigor and curiosity, and fresh eyes.
"... period that demands we really think about beliefs we take for granted, whether that is about things we assume to be true ..."
Amen to that. ICYMI, a rather brilliant observation from "Scott Alexander" -- a pseudonym, previously of "Slate Star Codex", but now on Substack "Astral Codex Ten" (not quite the wooish idea it appears as):
SA: "Topics here tend to center vaguely around this meta-philosophical idea of how people evaluate arguments for their beliefs, and especially whether this process is spectacularly broken in a way that may or may not doom us all."
I'm happy to finally have a clear answer to this question: Astral Codex Ten is a blog about ṛta.
Ṛta is a Sanskrit word, so ancient that it brushes up against the origin of Indo-European languages. It's related to English 'rationality' and 'arithmetic', but also 'art' and 'harmony'. And 'right', both in the senses of 'natural rights' and 'the right answer'. And 'order'. And 'arete' and 'aristos' and all those other Greek words about morality."
Clever fellow, a psychologist by training, a lot of cogent insights. But since you brought up the important issue of categories, you might also have some interest in his old post on the topic:
"The Categories Were Made For Man, Not Man For The Categories":
Rather long-winded exposition -- as is his wont -- but still some useful insights and perspectives. However, I think he's too quick to argue or to suggest that "you can define words [and categories] any way you want", although I see he subsequently added an addendum to reject that idea. Still, he seems unwilling to consider that some definitions -- particularly for the sexes -- are rather better, and more consistent, logical, and useful than other ones.
We observe few if any cases of gender distress among our comrades in the DPRK. Therefore, for Genspect to attain ideological hegemony, all Genspect members must prove their ideological purity and be subject relentless self-criticism if they fall short. In addition, in order to set an example for the People, observe a strict gender-neutral dress code at all times in public. I suggest a Mao suit.
Seriously, you are doing a brilliant job Stella and Genspect is a beacon of hope and sanity. We need to talk about all these issues openly and Genspect facilitates open dialogue. Ignore the trolls and pile-ons on X and keep on doing what you're doing. X/Twitter drives people insane. People say the most extreme things to get a reaction.
I still don't understand the controversy around Phil Illy, or specifically the fact that he wore a dress at the conference.
I wish to live in a society that doesn't merely begrudgingly tolerate plurality of thought, but actively welcomes it. As humans, we are all wrong on a regular basis, about things big and small. The kind of society that suppresses discussion and debate in favor of towing one single party line is inevitably one that gets stuck in those wrongs somewhere along the line. That also applies to organizations of all kinds, such as political parties, professional associations, and so on.
Likewise, the argument that someone shouldn't do something (or, even worse, be prevented from doing something by others) solely because that thing is "triggering" (or just offensive) to someone else is one I find scary. It reminds me a great deal of the postmodernist rhetoric we now hear everywhere all the time.
That road leads nowhere good. Clinical phrasing may not be the most useful at all, but for lack of better words, those of us with traumatic experiences behind us and PTSD all have different triggers, to the point where it is quite likely that everything imaginable is a trigger to someone. Perhaps it is begonias. Should those be banned, then? No. Rather, it is ultimately our responsibility to manage those triggers (it is sometimes, but not always, possible to arrange one's life to avoid them), and learning to do so is also what leads to improved overall wellbeing.
I don't see any material, principle-driven difference between suggesting that Genspect should ban men from showing up to conferences in dresses because it offends some and suggesting that social media platforms should ban children's writers from talking about gender issues because it offends some.
Quite apart from that, I thought Phil Illy's thoughts were interesting to listen to in various podcasts. If he can help people understand themselves or someone else in their lives better, there is value in that regardless of what he chooses to wear. I thought he looked ridiculous, but that's really neither here nor there.
Hi Stella, I just want to offer a few thoughts as a mom. If it matters, I’m a gen-Xer and have a FtM daughter.
I was at your conference in Colorado. It was amazing, and I was extremely dismayed by the controversy that erupted - on social media - afterwards. If Phil’s presence was an affront to anyone at the conference, I didn’t notice. My sense was that there was a feeling on the ground of having bigger fish to fry.
I really appreciate your essay and I can easily see and situate myself within the ideological frameworks that you describe here.
TBH, I’ve never really considered myself a feminist. I’m grateful for the gains made over many decades for reproductive choices, job opportunities, etc. But I guess in recent years in particular I felt bothered or even alienated by what I perceive to be some of the more strident aspects.
Of course, seeing the TRAs run roughshod over women’s private spaces and women’s sports over the last few years has made me reconsider my reticent feminism. I’m middle aged now, and for the first time in my life, I’ve joined women’s rights groups. That said, I agree that Genspect should not strictly consider itself a women’s right group.
On the other side, I’m like most other left-leaning liberal Canadian folks. Hubby and I don’t care if (20yo) daughter is a lesbian. Any yet. Here she is insisting that she’s always had a boy brain and needs to transition. In my household there is no obligation around girls having to do this or that, no being forced to wear dresses or cook the food.
But TBH, having been put through the wringer the last five years, I think wistfully of the social conservatives that you mention. And in the dead of the night, I lie awake asking myself, what if I had made her wear a dress that time, do her hair? Put on some pretty shoes? Would she have found some joy in a simple act? Would that have been enough to tether her to being female? Would it have eased her over the rough patches of adolescence?
All that to say, I really appreciate the thoughtful approach you’ve laid out here, especially your determination to stick to truly Liberal values. It feels like this approach is getting to be a rarity, and that’s a shame.
I still believe in people with different points of view of view coming together for a greater good.
I want kids to have to freedom to grow up to be gay or lesbian. I want the MtF boys to get help, too. Stella, my heart breaks for the moms and dads of boys trapped in this hell. It’s so complicated for them. Genspect makes me feel less alone in the world. You have given me a sense of community and hope. Families of MtFs need the same. If that means I need to sit next to a guy in a dress at the next Genspect conference, so be it.
Again, thank you for this Stella.
About the Venn diagram, I wish I could get a better view. On my phone, it’s a tiny thumbnail. And it doesn’t show anywhere else on the post when I open it.
I agree, it is much better for Genspect to stay non-biased, non-partisan, and inclusive, because that is how they will invite more people to participate, and keeping this stance will have a farther reach and help many more people.
I’m so pleased to read this. If it were up to me, I’d do away with the belief buckets ”gender critical, social conservative” altogether. People are free to say what they think they are, but even within categories, there are a range of opinions. We are in a unique and unprecedented (as far as I can tell) period that demands we really think about beliefs we take for granted, whether that is about things we assume to be true, or about the motives and beliefs of other people. In my own work I have had to reexamine my beliefs many times on the basis of evidence, thought and discussion with others. It’s humbling but I know that I stand on a much firmer foundation as a result.
Genspect has the potential to create a firm foundation for understanding gender in the current period. I believe it will go a lot better if we abandon the labels, our own and those we apply to others, and look at gender and sex with rigor and curiosity, and fresh eyes.
"... period that demands we really think about beliefs we take for granted, whether that is about things we assume to be true ..."
Amen to that. ICYMI, a rather brilliant observation from "Scott Alexander" -- a pseudonym, previously of "Slate Star Codex", but now on Substack "Astral Codex Ten" (not quite the wooish idea it appears as):
SA: "Topics here tend to center vaguely around this meta-philosophical idea of how people evaluate arguments for their beliefs, and especially whether this process is spectacularly broken in a way that may or may not doom us all."
https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/20/writing-advice/
"Doomed! I say, doomed!" 😉🙂 Still, some justification for the "apprehension".
But see his current About page for where he's actually coming from:
https://www.astralcodexten.com/about
"What is Astral Codex Ten?
I'm happy to finally have a clear answer to this question: Astral Codex Ten is a blog about ṛta.
Ṛta is a Sanskrit word, so ancient that it brushes up against the origin of Indo-European languages. It's related to English 'rationality' and 'arithmetic', but also 'art' and 'harmony'. And 'right', both in the senses of 'natural rights' and 'the right answer'. And 'order'. And 'arete' and 'aristos' and all those other Greek words about morality."
Clever fellow, a psychologist by training, a lot of cogent insights. But since you brought up the important issue of categories, you might also have some interest in his old post on the topic:
"The Categories Were Made For Man, Not Man For The Categories":
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-made-for-man-not-man-for-the-categories/
Rather long-winded exposition -- as is his wont -- but still some useful insights and perspectives. However, I think he's too quick to argue or to suggest that "you can define words [and categories] any way you want", although I see he subsequently added an addendum to reject that idea. Still, he seems unwilling to consider that some definitions -- particularly for the sexes -- are rather better, and more consistent, logical, and useful than other ones.
That's interesting. I'll have a look.
A Modest Proposal:
We observe few if any cases of gender distress among our comrades in the DPRK. Therefore, for Genspect to attain ideological hegemony, all Genspect members must prove their ideological purity and be subject relentless self-criticism if they fall short. In addition, in order to set an example for the People, observe a strict gender-neutral dress code at all times in public. I suggest a Mao suit.
Seriously, you are doing a brilliant job Stella and Genspect is a beacon of hope and sanity. We need to talk about all these issues openly and Genspect facilitates open dialogue. Ignore the trolls and pile-ons on X and keep on doing what you're doing. X/Twitter drives people insane. People say the most extreme things to get a reaction.
🙂 I expect many feminists would be in full agreement with that policy ... 😉🙂
I still don't understand the controversy around Phil Illy, or specifically the fact that he wore a dress at the conference.
I wish to live in a society that doesn't merely begrudgingly tolerate plurality of thought, but actively welcomes it. As humans, we are all wrong on a regular basis, about things big and small. The kind of society that suppresses discussion and debate in favor of towing one single party line is inevitably one that gets stuck in those wrongs somewhere along the line. That also applies to organizations of all kinds, such as political parties, professional associations, and so on.
Likewise, the argument that someone shouldn't do something (or, even worse, be prevented from doing something by others) solely because that thing is "triggering" (or just offensive) to someone else is one I find scary. It reminds me a great deal of the postmodernist rhetoric we now hear everywhere all the time.
That road leads nowhere good. Clinical phrasing may not be the most useful at all, but for lack of better words, those of us with traumatic experiences behind us and PTSD all have different triggers, to the point where it is quite likely that everything imaginable is a trigger to someone. Perhaps it is begonias. Should those be banned, then? No. Rather, it is ultimately our responsibility to manage those triggers (it is sometimes, but not always, possible to arrange one's life to avoid them), and learning to do so is also what leads to improved overall wellbeing.
I don't see any material, principle-driven difference between suggesting that Genspect should ban men from showing up to conferences in dresses because it offends some and suggesting that social media platforms should ban children's writers from talking about gender issues because it offends some.
Quite apart from that, I thought Phil Illy's thoughts were interesting to listen to in various podcasts. If he can help people understand themselves or someone else in their lives better, there is value in that regardless of what he chooses to wear. I thought he looked ridiculous, but that's really neither here nor there.
By the way, I can't see the Venn diagram.
So perfect! Well done! and Thank You!!