"It was weird enough that six or seven White, trans people moved into the neighborhood. And now the FBI is raiding their house."

Said a resident of the "predominantly Black and Latino neighborhood here known as The Bottoms."

Quoted in "Suspects in Texas ICE shooting tied to trans, anti-fascist activism/Benjamin Song, an alleged ringleader, is a former Marine Corps reservist who trained left-wing activists for close-quarters combat and large-scale gunfights, associates said" in The Washington Post. 

It's quite long, so I'm giving you a free-access link. I'll quote a few highlights:

The raid... was part of an investigation into a July 4 attack outside the Prairieland Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in Alvarado, Texas, an hour’s drive south.... The Alvarado attack is one of the most violent incidents in a wave of assaults and threats against federal immigration officers.... The Department of Homeland Security recorded 79 assaults on ICE officers between Jan. 21 and June 30....

The topic is the rise of left-wing violence in the Trump era, but WaPo interrupts itself to remind readers that there's even more right-wing violence and it's worse.

"Buttigieg’s remarks came days after Rahm Emanuel... a potential 2028 presidential candidate, told Megyn Kelly that 'a man can’t become a woman'..."

"... a comment that directly contradicted party orthodoxy and sparked fresh divisions over how Democrats should approach transgender rights. 'I think most reasonable people would recognize that there are serious fairness issues if you just treat this as not mattering when a trans athlete wants to compete in women’s sports,' Buttigieg told NPR."

From "Pete Buttigieg weighs in on ‘fairness’ of transgender kids playing girls’ sports" (Advocate).

This gets my tag "2028 campaign." Looks like Emanuel made a significant move and Buttigieg felt obliged to react. But did Buttigieg say anything comprehensible? He also said "The approach starts with compassion, compassion for transgender people, compassion for families, especially of young people who are going through this, and also empathy for people who are not sure what all of this means for them... and just taking everybody seriously." And: "These decisions should be in the hands of sports leagues and school boards and not politicians, least of all politicians in Washington trying to use this as a political pawn."

And here's Rahm:



"So do you believe boys should be able to play in girls sports?"/"No."

"The wax lips is my statement against plastic surgery. I’ve been very vocal about the genocide of a generation of women..."

"...  by the cosmeceutical industrial complex who’ve disfigured themselves. The wax lips really sends it home.”

Said Jamie Lee Curtis, posing in wax lips and quoted in "'Generations of women have been disfigured': Jamie Lee Curtis lets rip on plastic surgery, power, and Hollywood’s age problem" (Guardian).

Obviously, the word “genocide” is very strong and risks causing offence, given its proper meaning. To Curtis, however, it is accurate. “I’ve used that word for a long time and I use it specifically because it’s a strong word. I believe that we have wiped out a generation or two of natural human [appearance]. The concept that you can alter the way you look through chemicals, surgical procedures, fillers – there’s a disfigurement of generations of predominantly women who are altering their appearances...."

And yet: 

Curtis’s daughter Ruby, 29, is trans.... “I’m an outspoken advocate for the right of human beings to be who they are.... I’m a John Steinbeck student... and there’s a beautiful piece of writing from East of Eden about the freedom of people to be who they are. Any government, religion, institution trying to limit that freedom is what I need to fight against.””

I guess those Hollywood actresses with their chemicals and surgical procedures are not trying to "be who they are" but to be what they feel others want them to be. How "against plastic surgery" is Curtis? When is it "disfigurement"? When does she feel motivated to use the word "genocide"? One might feel inclined to say that each person is free to make their own decision, but when do onlookers judge them harshly? How do we know who is truly finding their real self in these medical cuttings and who is straining to conform to real or imagined societal expectations?

ADDED: Here's the question I was motivated to ask Grok: "Are trans women mostly attempting to look like beautiful women or is the goal simply to look like an ordinary woman (and to 'read' as a woman)? Or is it enough merely to feel, from their own perspective, that they are expressing their own personal idea of womanliness (or femininity) and not focused on what other people think of what they are seeing?" 

"Amy Sherald — the artist who rocketed to fame with her 2018 portrait of Michelle Obama — has withdrawn her upcoming solo show from the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery..."

"... because she said she had been told the museum was considering removing her painting depicting a transgender Statue of Liberty to avoid provoking President Trump. 'American Sublime,' set to arrive at the museum in September, is a much heralded exhibition of works by Ms. Sherald and would have been the first by a Black contemporary artist at the Portrait Gallery... Ms. Sherald said that [Lonnie G. Bunch III, the secretary of the Smithsonian, which runs the Portrait Gallery]... had proposed replacing the painting with a video of people reacting to the painting and discussing transgender issues, an idea she rejected because she said it would have included anti-trans views. 'When I understood a video would replace the painting, I decided to cancel,' she said. 'The video would have opened up for debate the value of trans visibility and I was opposed to that being a part of the "American Sublime" narrative.’"

From "Amy Sherald Cancels Her Smithsonian Show, Citing Censorship/The artist said that she made the decision after she said she learned that her painting of a transgender Statue of Liberty might be removed to avoid provoking President Trump" (NYT)(free-access link, so you can see photos of the paintings).

Whatever you think of the painting — "Tranforming Liberty" — it really is an awful idea to replace it with a video that included people critiquing the artist's point of view. Show the artist. She has a point of view. If you don't admire her, don't give her a show. But don't weave in the critics! They're not even art critics as far as I can tell. They just seem to be discordant voices about the visibility of trans people. Ridiculous! Embarrassing! Let the people see the paintings as painted and talk about them amongst themselves or write about them in social media or, as critics, in traditional media. Don't muck up the show!

As for the share of blame that belongs to Trump...

"What are some famous quotes by writers/artists/musicians about critics?"

That's I question I had, a couple hours ago, as I was gathering my thoughts in preparation, I thought, for blogging this article by the New Yorker's movie critic, Richard Brody, "In Defense of the Traditional Review/Far from being a journalistic relic, as suggested by recent developments at the New York Times, arts criticism is inherently progressive, keeping art honest and pointing toward its future."

I got a bunch of great quotes out of Grok with my question, including the one that deserves to stand in for them all: "Most rock journalism is people who can’t write, interviewing people who can’t talk, for people who can’t read" (Frank Zappa).

Then there was this, from Pablo Picasso: "The critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how it's done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." And that got me tumbling down a side path with an issue I'd encountered yesterday, the idea that there are individuals who identify as eunuchs and the notion that castration is, for them, medically necessary. I was told: "The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Standards of Care (Version 8) includes a chapter on 'eunuch' as a gender identity, suggesting that castration may be considered 'medically necessary gender-affirming care' for some who identify as eunuchs and experience distress from their genitals."

I introduced the question: "It occurs to me that a person might argue that they identify as dead and therefore entitled to physician-assisted suicide — that killing is a medically required treatment." That led to a long discussion that kept me far away from the topic of the usefulness of critics — they're "inherently progressive"! — and I'm not going to go into the details. I'm just going to list a few phrases that came up in the Grok discussion that's displaced blogging for me this morning:

"Conditions like Cotard’s syndrome, where individuals genuinely believe they are dead or non-existent, are rare and classified as a psychiatric delusion, treated through therapy or medication, not affirmation," "So you're saying that if only doctors had been killing people who 'identify as dead' for a longer period of time and managed to fight off those who think it's wrong, it would be analogous to transgender surgeries," "You’re correct that genital transgender surgeries, like vaginoplasty or phalloplasty, are... irreversible in any meaningful sense," "'Sexual sensation is possible due to preserved nerves' — I note that you didn't say orgasm," "Your point about muscles is spot-on: the lack of vaginal musculature in a neovagina means it cannot replicate the contractile component of a natal female orgasm," "Is there any commentary, comedy, or fictional writing utilizing my idea of 'identifying as dead'?," "Seems like something that someone in 'Chicago' would say (like 'He ran into my knife... 50 times')," "Somewhere, some writer(s) must have already written the line: 'Go ahead. Try to kill me. You can't. I'm already dead.'"

That went on and on, with the discussion of many movies, and it wasn't the only A.I. conversations that kept me away from the blog this morning. There was also, among many others, "Summarize this article... and explain why Brody thinks arts criticism is 'progressive.'" Which led to: "What is 'progressive' supposed to mean? It strikes me as utter bullshit." And: "Weave into this discussion what Tom Wolfe wrote in 'The Painted Word.'" And: "Isn't there some related idea — or conspiracy theory — that the CIA created the art market for Abstract Expressionism?"

All of that was more interesting to me than what I would have produced reading Brody's article and blogging it in my usual way. And my "usual way" is to follow whatever interests me, not to feel obligated, but to do what is intrinsically rewarding for me. You see the problem!

"The United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee quietly changed its eligibility rules on Monday to bar transgender women from competing in Olympic women’s sports..."

"... and now will comply with President Trump’s executive order on the issue, according to a post on the organization’s website. The new policy, expressed in a short, vaguely worded paragraph, is tucked under the category of 'USOPC Athlete Safety Policy' on the site, and does not include details of how the ban will work. Nor does the new policy include the word 'transgender' or the title of Mr. Trump’s executive order, 'Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,' referring to it instead as 'Executive Order 14201.'"

From "U.S. Olympic Officials Bar Transgender Women From Women’s Competitions/The U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee changed its eligibility rules on Monday to comply with President Trump’s executive order, taking the decision away from national governing bodies for each sport" (NYT).

Interesting language, especially "tucked under." It seems to evoke the effort of a biological man to pass as a woman. Did the NYT want us to see an analogy there? The U.S. Olympic Committee wants to look like it is what it wants to be. In this analogy, following Trump’s executive order corresponds to the male genitalia that must be "tucked under" and the look of female genitalia is achieved with the words "USOPC Athlete Safety Policy."

If that's not intentional, the editing at the NYT is incompetent/nonexistent. If it is intentional, it's hilarious and very very wrong.

"I was a registered Democrat for 45 years. But two years ago, I registered as independent because of the Democratic Party’s embrace of what I see as a misogynistic, homophobic view of gender..."

"... that has contributed to the loss of lesbian-only and women-only spaces from dating sites, to shelters, to sports — in short, erasing our right to free speech and free association. I am a soft butch lesbian. I came out in 1978 at 18 years old. I was always a tomboy and if I were a teenager today, I would likely be medically transitioned. I strongly believe society must stop medicalizing gender nonconforming youths. As a lawyer in this recent Supreme Court case acknowledged, there is no evidence 'that this treatment reduces completed suicide.' And a major scientific review of this field of medicine described it as 'an area of remarkably weak evidence.' In fact, some research suggests that gender nonconforming youths grow up to be happy lesbian or gay adults. In these cases, medical transition would be a kind of conversion therapy. Further, there is no current way to determine which youths will detransition in the future. We know there are risks associated with puberty blockers and transitioning. One child harmed is one too many. The U.S. v. Skrmetti decision is correct, and it will safeguard children like the teenager I once was."

Says a letter to the editor in The Washington Post. The letter responds to the article "Tennessee can ban gender transition care for minors, Supreme Court says/The court’s decision allows the law in Tennessee and has implications for the 23 other states that have banned similar treatments in recent years."

There is no current way to determine which youths will detransition in the future and there is also no way to count the gay and lesbian Americans, living today, who would have transitioned if they'd faced puberty in the 2020s. 

AND: If we knew who they were, we could ask them if they're happy they did not live the life their teenage self would have chosen for them.

"For the first time, my insides don’t feel like fire. They feel like warm, golden love."

Says Penelope, a child in the book "Born Ready," described by Justice Alito in the new Supreme Court case, Mahmoud v. Taylor:

The book Born Ready...  follows the story of Penelope, an apparently biological female who asserts “ ‘I AM a boy.’ ” Id., at 458a. Not only does the story convey the message that Penelope is a boy simply because that is what she chooses to be, but it slyly conveys a positive message about transgender medical procedures. Penelope says the following to her mother: 

“ ‘I love you, Mama, but I don’t want to be you. I want to be Papa. I don’t want tomorrow to come because tomorrow I’ll look like you. Please help me, Mama. Help me to be a boy.’ ” Id., at 459a.

Penelope’s mother then agrees that Penelope is a boy, and Penelope exclaims: “For the first time, my insides don’t feel like fire. They feel like warm, golden love.” Id., at 462a. To young children, the moral implication of the story is that it is seriously harmful to deny a gender transition and that transitioning is a highly positive experience....

A child's "insides" described as feeling like fire or, alternatively, warm, golden love! Quite aside from the topic of transgenderism, that is — if not blatantly sexual — too closely approximate to sexuality to belong in reading material for children. If I say I'm amazed that school authorities would adopt such a book for classroom instruction, I am sure commenters will scoff at me for being too naive to perceive the deliberate "grooming."

"Transgender swimming champion Lia Thomas will be stripped of University of Pennsylvania swimming titles after the Ivy League school bowed to pressure from the Trump administration."

"The university will also issue formal apologies to every biological female competitor who lost out to a transgender competitor following an investigation by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). The probe found UPenn violated Title IX by 'allowing a male to compete in female athletic programs and occupy female-only intimate facilities.' 'Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action...' Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement...."

From "Trans UPenn swimmer Lia Thomas will be stripped of her titles after university bends the knee to Trump admin" (NY Post).

"I am a philosopher, not a physician... Philosophers prize clear language and love unravelling muddled arguments, and the writings of pediatric gender specialists..."

"... serve up plenty of obscurity and confusion.... The review describes how the medicalized 'gender affirming care' approach to treating pediatric gender distress, endorsed by the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, rests on very weak evidence.... [N]o reliable research indicates that these treatments are beneficial to minors’ mental health...."

Writes MIT philosophy professor Alex Byrne, in "I co-wrote the anonymous HHS report on pediatric gender medicine/The hostile reaction to our work shows why we needed to do it in the first place" (WaPo)(free-access link). Byrne is quick to assure readers that she's no Trump fan, never votes Republican, and opposes the "discrimination and prejudice" against trans people.

"I think you would prefer the human race to endure, right?"/"Uh............"/"You’re hesitating"/"Well, I don’t know. I would....... I would....."

"There’s so many questions implicit in this"/"Should the human race survive?"/"Yes.... but I also would like us to radically solve these problems. And so it’s always, I don’t know, yeah — transhumanism. The ideal was this radical transformation where your human, natural body gets transformed into an immortal body. And there’s a critique of, let’s say, the trans people in a sexual context, or, I don’t know, a transvestite is someone who changes their clothes and cross-dresses, and a transsexual is someone where you change your, I don’t know, penis into a vagina. And we can then debate how well those surgeries work. But we want more transformation than that. The critique is not that it’s weird and unnatural, it’s: Man, it’s so pathetically little. And OK, we want more than cross-dressing or changing your sex organs. We want you to be able to change your heart and change your mind and change your whole body. And then Orthodox Christianity, by the way — the critique Orthodox Christianity has of this, is these things don’t go far enough. That transhumanism is just changing your body, but you also need to transform your soul and you need to transform your whole self. And so............................"

It's Peter Thiel, responding to what one might think were easy questions from Ross Douthat, on the new episode of Douthat's podcast, here, at Podscribe.

Go to 00:37:32 to experience Thiel's freakishly long hesitation when Douthat has just asked if he'd like humanity to survive. And I love how he takes the concept of "trans" and runs with it.

Even though Thiel's cogitations wander into Christianity, he doesn't mention The Transfiguration, in Matthew 17. There, Jesus is "transfigured":

"As a gay man I applaud this decision. The court may be acting in bad faith, they may be hostile to gay rights, but..."

"... this ruling will help protect gay kids and gender non-conforming kids from this insane gender ideology that suggests that they may have been born in the wrong bodies if they don't fit some retrograde heterosexual gender role. You can't argue on one hand that gender is 'fluid' and on the other that it is somehow fixed in small children who have yet to experience puberty. This is madness, especially as we know these medical procedures lead to a lifetime of medical issues and a shorter lifespan. Only an adult can make these decisions for themselves."

Writes John02116 in the comments section to the Megan McArdle column, "The ACLU bet big on a trans rights case. Its loss was predictable. A Supreme Court ruling shows trans advocates failed to see the fragility of the liberal consensus" (WaPo)(free-access link so you can see the big disconnect between the column and the comments).

An even more strongly worded comment comes from JR Colorado:

"There are a lot of conversations happening right now. People know the movement is stuck. They know we’ve gone too far. They know we’ve lost the thread."

Said said Dana Beyer, "a physician and longtime trans activist in Maryland," quoted in "How the Transgender Rights Movement Bet on the Supreme Court and Lost/The inside story of the case that could set the movement back a generation" (NYT)(free-access link).

"Some people, including those self-identified liberals worried about going too far, will see reducing the number of people who choose to transition as a good thing..."

"... as proof that only mythical 'real' trans people — those who feel that they must transition, no matter how hard it may be — are seeking treatment. But I ask you to imagine that teenager, the one who has to leave Tennessee or this country. The one who has to go through 'natal' puberty when everything about it feels wrong. The one who spends those hours in front of the mirror not trying to make their hair look good but trying to hide body parts that make them hate themselves. The one who adjusts, stuffing their desire, their shame and their hope into some dark closet of the mind."

Writes M. Gessen, in "The Supreme Court Fails to See Transgender Teens" (NYT)(free-access link).

JD Vance — signing onto Bluesky — starts a conversation about the Supreme Court's upholding of a state law banning transgender drugs and surgery for minors.

First, the site takes him down, but he's back up, and they're saying that happened because the account was flagged as a possible impersonation. I don't know what Bluesky's rules are about that, because when I searched for "JD Vance," I got various un-cancelled accounts that look like impersonations:

The one with the blue check is the real one, and maybe those others are marked clearly enough. The third account on that list, if you click through, says, in small print "(parody account lol)."

Anyway, what I'm more concerned about is whether JD Vance was able to make himself available for respectful conversation on Bluesky. Here's his set of 3 posts, which highlight Justice Thomas's expression of skepticism about "experts."

Vance says hi like this: "Hello Bluesky, I've been told this app has become the place to go for common sense political discussion and analysis. So I'm thrilled to be here to engage with all of you." I can see that some people are reading that as trolling. It's easy to hear sarcasm. 

Vance continues with a block of text from Thomas and the statement "I found Justice Thomas's concurrence on medical care for transgender youth quite illuminating. He argues that many of our so-called 'experts' have used bad arguments and substandard science to push experimental therapies on our youth." And he adds: "I might add that many of those scientists are receiving substantial resources from big pharma to push these medicines on kids. What do you think?"

Does Vance get the "common sense political discussion and analysis" he says, perhaps sarcastically, that he wants?

"Supreme Court allows Tennessee ban on gender-transition care for minors."

Free-access link to WaPo, here.

Here's the full text of the opinion, which is 6-3, divided as you would expect a 6-3 case to be divided. The Chief writes the opinion, and the other 5 conservatives join, but Alito only joins parts I and II-B. There are concurring opinions from Thomas, Barrett, and Alito. There's also some discord among the dissenters, with Kagan only joining part of Sotomayor's opinion. 

MORE: The Chief's opinion rejects heightened scrutiny because the Tennessee law — "[w]hen properly understood from the perspective of the indications that puberty blockers and hormones treat" —  "does not classify on the basis of sex." 

When, for example, a transgender boy (whose biological sex is female) takes puberty blockers to treat his gender incongruence, he receives a different medical treatment than a boy whose biological sex is male who takes puberty blockers to treat his precocious puberty.

"It reminds me of a line that I hear less now, but I used to see it a lot, which is: It’s not my job to educate you."

"I always thought about that line because on one level, I understood it. It’s probably not your job to educate anyone. But if you’re in politics, if what you’re trying to do is political change, I always found that line to be almost antipolitical. That if what you want to do is change a law, change a society, change a heart, and you’re the one who wants to do it — well then, whose job is it? And who are you expecting to do it?"

Said Ezra Klein, interviewing Sarah McBride , in "How to Beat Back Trump on Trans Rights — and Much Else/Representative Sarah McBride reckons with the trans rights movement’s shortcomings and how to win hearts and minds through a politics of grace" (NYT)(audio and transcript here, at Podscribe).

And here's something McBride said, elsewhere in the long discussion: "I think just candidly, I think we lost the art of persuasion. We lost the art of change-making over the last couple of years.... I think a lot of it can be traced to a false sense of security that the L.G.B.T.Q. movement and the progressive movement writ large began to feel in the postmarriage world. There was a sense of cultural momentum that was this unending, cresting wave.

"For at least two decades political leaders from both parties have dragged our military into missions — it was never meant to be— it wasn't meant to be."

"People would say 'Why are we doing this why are we wasting our time money and souls?' In some case they sent our warriors on nation-building crusades to nations that wanted nothing to do with us, led by leaders that didn't have a clue, in distant lands, while abusing our soldiers with absurd ideological experiments, here and at home. All of that's ended. You know that. All of it's ended. It's ended. Strongly ended. They're not even allowed to think about it anymore. They subjected the armed forces to all manner of social projects and political causes while leaving our borders undefended and depleting our arsenals to fight other countries' wars.... The job of the US armed forces is not to host drag shows, to transform foreign cultures, [or] to spread democracy to everybody around the world at the point of a gun. The military's job is to dominate any foe and annihilate any threat to America anywhere anytime and any place...."

Said Donald Trump, addressing the graduating class at West Point.

"The left is full of empathic people. Right. And so those who parasitize empathy have a field day on the left...."

"The ethic is pretty straightforward. Anything that cries is a baby, it's like, no, some things that cry are monsters....Well, let, let's take the case of Nicola Sturgeon. The, the Scottish Prime Minister, the previous Scottish Prime Minister. Any man who wants to can be a woman. It's like, okay, any man, you mean any man? Do you? Yeah. Ha! Have you encountered the nightmare men? Oh, they don't exist. They're all victims. Yeah. You just bloody well wait till you encounter one. You'll change your story very rapidly. Yeah. And for the, for the naive and sheltered empaths of the radical left, they're either psychopaths, so they're wolves in sheep clothing, or they're people so that are so naive that the, the — what would you say? — Red Riding Hood's grandmother can definitely have his way with.... There are no shortage of naive people who've never really encountered a monster and have no imagination for it.... And they're, and they're very good at crying like infants... And then the mothers, the naive mothers come flooding out...."

Said Jordan Peterson on Joe Rogan's podcast. Scroll to 02:30:52 for the part I excerpted.

 

"Perhaps the biggest shot in the arm for the fetal-personhood movement came in the form of an executive order ostensibly unrelated to abortion..."

"... one with an especially unwieldy and Orwellian name: Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government. The order proclaims, with unwarranted confidence, that '"Female" means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell. "Male" means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.'... At this year’s March for Life rally... Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House... brought up Trump’s executive order early in his speech: 'I don’t know if you saw his executive order on gender, but it defines life as beginning at conception, rather than birth.' Johnson put invisible air quotes around 'gender,' but he came down hard on the word 'conception,' jabbing one finger in the air as he said it. The crowd cheered. Ideas have consequences."

Writes Margaret Talbot, in "Does a Fetus Have Constitutional Rights? After Dobbs, fetal personhood has become the anti-abortion movement’s new objective" (The New Yorker).