Discussion about this post

Commenting has been turned off for this post
Barbara Bull's avatar

I would like to add here that Kara Dansky fully supports the concept of sexual orientations. In other words, the LGB and S for straight. I don’t like to see homophobic comments on a gender critical site.

Expand full comment
Leslie's avatar

Thank you for all that you are doing, for this terrific post, and for the invitation to participate in the conversation.

I do not have your experience or expertise in this legal arena (my legal experience is different), but like many thinking people, I have given these issues considerably time, study and thought; I hope some of my comments are both sufficiently-informed and useful.

I agree entirely with WoLF’s response to the order: the Administration’s efforts to protect people who do not conform to sex-based stereotypes have the result of inappropriately asserting medical/clinical treatment protocols that sexualize children and fail to address the mental health challenges of both adults and children.

With respect to “the rot”:

Yes, sex-denialism is a root of the problem (as well as political pandering). Yes, the meaning, and objective reality, of “gender identity” is assumed rather than defined in the order.

My concern is how we (opponents of sex-denialism) can best advocate against this. I wonder if describing “gender identity” as “amorphous” is the most persuasive we can be. The problem with “gender identity” is not that it is “without a clearly defined shape or form”, but that it does not do the work that language must do in law (describe objective, real world things), and it is not the kind of thing that the law properly reaches (real, objective things). “Gender identity” is vague for legal purposes.

Sex is objectively real (regardless of the ACLU’s current nonsense). So – if “gender identity” were defined in terms of behaviors and expectations associated with sex-stereotypes, that might be sufficiently concrete to communicate what the law would need to function properly and effectively – it would not be vague (not just objectively wrong if defined otherwise).

I am sympathetic to objections of lesbian and gay comrades that “queer” is a slur. But I don’t think calling the order homophobic is the most persuasive argument to be made against the term, at least for our purposes (especially when we want to save arguments about homophobia where they really count – medicalization of children). But I think we have to come up with a clear way of describing “queer theory” in terms of how it fails as a vehicle for law: it is not merely offensive to some, but contradicts material reality for all. “Queer theory” uses language in a way that is subjective and purposefully disruptive and unstable – precisely what law cannot do.

If we think the Administration’s order reflects its consumption of “queer theory”, then we can attack that theory directly, in terms of how it fails for law.

Yes, the language of the order repeats the conflation of sex and “gender identity”, which means sex-based protection is compromised. Would it be more persuasive to demonstrate how the Admiinistration’s arguments depend on a denial of biology and clear failure to account for how using a “gender ideology” framework to protect people vulnerable to discrimination on the basis of non-conformity to sex-stereotypes (ie. men who behave like women, or women who behave like men, or people who mix it up) would also protect the rest of us vulnerable on account of sex and sexual orientation?

I’m so glad that WDU-USA has filed it’s amicus brief in Tennessee v. Department of Education. We’ve known for decades that 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause arguments were the right constitutional arguments to make to protect women from sex-based discrimination. I wouldn’t presume to question your assessment of the Administration’s exhaustive use of executive power and federal administrative law. Have we exhausted the ways to persuasively explain this particular issue publicly than have been used in the past? Your podcast following the disclosure of Justice Alito’s proposed opinion re: Roe v Wade was terrific. I’d love to see that worked into something bigger for wide public consumption, with clear articulation of the ways the 14th Amendment equal protection actually works.

I concur with your assessment of the Order’s recommendations for policies, assessments and studies. It’s political virtue signaling. I want to know how the Administration’s recommendations comport with well-established medical scientific research standards, including how the policies, assessments and studies take into account bad results, measurable bad results, including reports from desistors and detransitioners. I want to advocate effectively about this, from a public policy point of view. How can we communicate, and even amplify, the concerns of many medical professionals, and get those concerns to be included in the Adminisration’s process?

Thank you for sharing Bill Moyer’s MAP information. A lot of life has happened between hearing about it when it was published (the year my second son was born), and today. I’m looking forward to chewing over it all soon. Yes, I think you are right – we are in the neighborhood of Stage 3, and that is very encouraging. Thank you and Lauren for all you’ve contributed to getting the American end of the movement to where we are. Fingers crossed your assessment of how we can move forward successfully is correct. I’m outraged and unafraid. I’m a signatory, and volunteering in the PA chapter of WDI-USA. What else can I do to move us forward?

Expand full comment
11 more comments...

No posts