I was deeply disappointed with John's response to the pronoun question. He says, "And I would hope that people who are having problems with these new developments would understand that just the X and Y chromosomes isn’t the argument. It’s almost a willful oversimplification of something that obviously is more interesting, and, frankly, just as real as that elementary distinction.” I can turn this right back around -- he is almost willfully oversimplifying extremely thoughtful arguments from women, lesbians, gays, parents, and detransitioners about why these "new developments" are dangerous and harmful. Boiling down gender critical discourse to "bUt ChRoMoSoMeS!!!" is extremely unfair dishonest.
Additionally, if someone is steeped in the discourse and still decides to use preferred pronouns for their reasons, I can respect that. I have a trans friend whom I call “she/her” even though this person is obviously a male. But to take that position out of ignorance, meanwhile talking with authority as though you are informed… THAT is what really disappoints me about John. It feels like willful ignorance from someone who is otherwise smart, well-read, and thoughtful, and his tone and language felt extremely dismissive of people with very valid concerns.
I understand that John is a linguist and he is trying to take a linguist approach to this issue. But it feels extremely incomplete to not even acknowledge why people are so concerned about pronouns and just say, "It's language. Language changes, and it's not in our control anyways." Would you discuss the N word without discussing the cultural context that surrounds its controversy? Why doesn't John give the same rigor to pronouns and gender issues that he gives to other issues?
Finally, it is clear to me how uninformed John is because he says, "Nobody can deny that there’s a biologically such thing as a man or biologically such thing as a woman." Veronica Ivy went on Trevor Noah and said, “I am a woman. It says so on my ID and birth certificate. And I’m biological, I’m made of cells and I’m alive. Am I not a biological woman?” How can he say “nobody is saying”? Many adults are claiming that biological sex is mutable, a spectrum, or nonexistent, which is all false. And this is extremely harmful to children, some of whom come to believe that sex isn't real, which has all sorts of implications for their sexual and reproductive development if they choose to interrupt it with hormones, whose consequences they cannot comprehend.
Sex denialism is rampant. Back in 2023, a whistleblower in Florida exposed that a lab in Florida was doing away with sex-based ranges to interpret test results. I saved the article because I knew Google would eventually bury it. What was reported in the Florida Standard is chilling:
"laboratory staff was recently informed by the chemistry supervisor that they are to work
with one range only – a combined one that is supposed to apply to both male and female patients. “He said that it was in the name of being ‘inclusive,’ so we don’t differentiate between genders – so we don’t discriminate against trans patients and so on,”the employee tells The Florida Standard. Laboratory workers were told that “inclusive ranges are the wave of the future” – which is also stated in the meeting agenda."
Exactly! He's avoiding uncomfortable discussions, and in order to do so is making sweeping generalizations. A consequence of this is he completely ignores the very real and very negative impacts - on children, women, and society. This is a pattern, and seems to get at key differences in the underlying values / ideologies between Glenn and John. I'm not sure how to craft the question, but the key point I would like to see them address is their take on what can/should be discussed, and particularly how we investigate thorny issues where feelings may be hurt, where *we* may feel uncomfortable or where there may be conflict because others may have to question their own worldview. John's reaction to Charles Murray comes to mind - he acknowledges hard truths and solid data analysis, while decrying the contribution because something like "there's no good story there". This seems like a visceral reaction to devalue honest investigation of reality because it "feels wrong", it seems to go against social cohesion, or there's no immediate resolution or path. This is very dangerous and allows avoidance of identifying and trying to solve real problems, and may well be behind much of what's gone wrong in the last few years. I respect Glenn's willingness to dive right into uncomfortable truths. John seems to too often trip on his empathic reactions, and lose focus. How many times did he feel the need to bring up how it's not Kendi's fault, how he feels bad for Kendi, while still lambasting him, and knowing full well the negative impact of his ideas? I think this is worth further exploration.
I was deeply disappointed with John's response to the pronoun question. He says, "And I would hope that people who are having problems with these new developments would understand that just the X and Y chromosomes isn’t the argument. It’s almost a willful oversimplification of something that obviously is more interesting, and, frankly, just as real as that elementary distinction.” I can turn this right back around -- he is almost willfully oversimplifying extremely thoughtful arguments from women, lesbians, gays, parents, and detransitioners about why these "new developments" are dangerous and harmful. Boiling down gender critical discourse to "bUt ChRoMoSoMeS!!!" is extremely unfair dishonest.
Additionally, if someone is steeped in the discourse and still decides to use preferred pronouns for their reasons, I can respect that. I have a trans friend whom I call “she/her” even though this person is obviously a male. But to take that position out of ignorance, meanwhile talking with authority as though you are informed… THAT is what really disappoints me about John. It feels like willful ignorance from someone who is otherwise smart, well-read, and thoughtful, and his tone and language felt extremely dismissive of people with very valid concerns.
I understand that John is a linguist and he is trying to take a linguist approach to this issue. But it feels extremely incomplete to not even acknowledge why people are so concerned about pronouns and just say, "It's language. Language changes, and it's not in our control anyways." Would you discuss the N word without discussing the cultural context that surrounds its controversy? Why doesn't John give the same rigor to pronouns and gender issues that he gives to other issues?
Finally, it is clear to me how uninformed John is because he says, "Nobody can deny that there’s a biologically such thing as a man or biologically such thing as a woman." Veronica Ivy went on Trevor Noah and said, “I am a woman. It says so on my ID and birth certificate. And I’m biological, I’m made of cells and I’m alive. Am I not a biological woman?” How can he say “nobody is saying”? Many adults are claiming that biological sex is mutable, a spectrum, or nonexistent, which is all false. And this is extremely harmful to children, some of whom come to believe that sex isn't real, which has all sorts of implications for their sexual and reproductive development if they choose to interrupt it with hormones, whose consequences they cannot comprehend.
Sex denialism is rampant. Back in 2023, a whistleblower in Florida exposed that a lab in Florida was doing away with sex-based ranges to interpret test results. I saved the article because I knew Google would eventually bury it. What was reported in the Florida Standard is chilling:
"laboratory staff was recently informed by the chemistry supervisor that they are to work
with one range only – a combined one that is supposed to apply to both male and female patients. “He said that it was in the name of being ‘inclusive,’ so we don’t differentiate between genders – so we don’t discriminate against trans patients and so on,”the employee tells The Florida Standard. Laboratory workers were told that “inclusive ranges are the wave of the future” – which is also stated in the meeting agenda."
jfc
Exactly! He's avoiding uncomfortable discussions, and in order to do so is making sweeping generalizations. A consequence of this is he completely ignores the very real and very negative impacts - on children, women, and society. This is a pattern, and seems to get at key differences in the underlying values / ideologies between Glenn and John. I'm not sure how to craft the question, but the key point I would like to see them address is their take on what can/should be discussed, and particularly how we investigate thorny issues where feelings may be hurt, where *we* may feel uncomfortable or where there may be conflict because others may have to question their own worldview. John's reaction to Charles Murray comes to mind - he acknowledges hard truths and solid data analysis, while decrying the contribution because something like "there's no good story there". This seems like a visceral reaction to devalue honest investigation of reality because it "feels wrong", it seems to go against social cohesion, or there's no immediate resolution or path. This is very dangerous and allows avoidance of identifying and trying to solve real problems, and may well be behind much of what's gone wrong in the last few years. I respect Glenn's willingness to dive right into uncomfortable truths. John seems to too often trip on his empathic reactions, and lose focus. How many times did he feel the need to bring up how it's not Kendi's fault, how he feels bad for Kendi, while still lambasting him, and knowing full well the negative impact of his ideas? I think this is worth further exploration.