What a beautifully written article Anthony. I am probably an atypical commenter here. I am a 71 year old conservative woman married to a man. But during the last 8 or so years, my business partner, friends, children and other relatives have decided that their “politics” were more important. More than classifying what I feel to my political or religious beliefs, I feel it is just plain common sense. I have no problem with who someone “loves”. I have a problem with exposing children to sex and making life altering changes to them. I questioned the Covid vaccine which I ended up getting so I could see my new grandson. Why was a criminal like George Floyd being lauded as some kind of hero? Why are so many young people anti semantic? Stand your ground. We all are entitled to our inalienable rights and in the end, you will not be alone. Those are not “your people”.
This post cut me like a knife. I’m a gay moderate/leans conservative in Austin and I’ve recently been distancing myself (or found myself distanced by) from some of my more progressive friends. I used to be part of a regular dinner group but left after 1) one member sent me several heated messages over a NYTimes op-ed I shared 2) another member said I don’t care about gay Christians when I questioned the wisdom of a church hosting a drag show and 3) another member said I was engaging in censorship when I raised concerns about a church board member posting things like “Political violence is the most American of all values” after the first attempted Trump assassination.
Welcome to the last decade, brother. It’s what I call, Mean Girls or “You can’t sit with us” politick. It’s based on moral grandstanding and cliquish exclusion.
That's hard to answer because Columbia is a massive mess at the moment. The university is in a LOT of trouble right now, perhaps more than people realize. I am just trying to maintain my sanity while there!
To whom you are attracted sexually is purely subjective and therefore cannot reasonably be contested by an outside observer.
Where you decide to live your life on a spectrum of superficial, stereotypical male to female attributes (and we all do) is also purely subjective and similarly cannot be questioned.
However, your biological sex reflects an objective reality which cannot be changed by your subjective personal view and futile attempts to do so can result in serious health impacts to you as well as harms to members of the sex you are impersonating (primarily women).
Others who are grounded in objective reality should never be forced to accept your subjective version of your actual biological sex.
Finally, it's past time for the LGB community to separate themselves from the trans activists who are trying to take away the rights of women to fairness in sports and to privacy and safety in their restrooms, locker rooms and prisons. They also advocate for the chemical and surgical mutilation of children many of whom would grow up gay.
Their actions are evil and the
understandable negative reaction to the harm they are causing is spilling over to innocent people who are just going about their business, marrying and leading their lives.
Oh, how RIGHT you are! EXTREMELY RIGHT most people would say! And how noble of you to encourage gays, lesbians and bisexuals---or "normal gay guys" as the blessed JD Vance calls them---to exclude, ostracize and demonize human beings who identify themselves as transexuals and queers! How sweet, insightful and deeply compassionate. I hope you teach your children to do the same because there is nothing as nurturing and character building as encouraging hatred and fear of "them"---whoever you decide belongs in that category! BRAVO! (Now get back to congratulating each other on how good you felt, reading this fearful, contradictory and self-pitying whine.)
I sense that a good number of people who joined the political migration rightward will begin to nudge back toward the left in the coming months. Having been firmly on the left for most of my adult life, I can confidently say that my aperture for what I value has widened and become more resolute here in the center-right. I teeter between that space and the left of center. Though I get your point entirely, it is possible to reject the dogma of progressivism while still embracing progressive ideals!
Well said. Just to clarify, I’ve always been and remain more to the left on economic issues. I’ve sometimes described myself as an unwoke social democrat.
Thank you for sharing your experience- I’m stunned to read what sounds like almost my exact experience. Specifically I began to question so much during BLM. I could go on but just know it helps to hear there is someone else having this same experience with Democrats.
This is a beautifully written piece, well reasoned and breathtakingly honest. I admire your bravery. It reassures me to know that there are smart and independent thinkers in a vast world of conformity.
I have been unfriended on FB for the most bigoted reasons, on their part. Gentle prodding is seen as heresy. Using the Socratic method is seen as heresy. You either wear the mantle that racism is the excuse for everything, or they pull out the guillotine. One guy posted that 'anyone who isn't on my side, get off my friends list' (there are many such types in my FB feed). How do they square that with their self-proclaimed tolerance? I knew, when I commented that actually, there is a difference between free speech and burning down buildings -- then offered my experience as a professor at a progressive NYC university, and that I teach international students who don't give a rat's ass about our politics, they just want to freely go to the classes they paid dearly for -- got me unfriended. What kind of person does this? NOT A LIBERAL ONE.
Many take umbrage with continuing to use the word 'liberal' to describe these people. They are bigots. Not liberals.
I find this very disheartening. As a gay millennial I never felt that I had to conform to the views of a putative “lgbt community”. Most of my friends are straight, and other than dating (and eventually marrying) a person of my own sex, I felt no different, nor was ever expected or pressured to assume any political views due to my sexual orientation. I always considered my ability to be accepted as “normal” to be the pinnacle of liberal American championing of gay rights and was grateful that I wasn’t born in an earlier generation. I also used to assume and hope that things would be even better for the younger generation. So I find it very sad and disheartening if gen z gays in a supposedly liberal place like columbia now limit themselves or are marginalized into a primarily “lgbt” social circle which forces on them certain dogma. That’s light years from my exprience and a huge setback if true.
I think you're right! I, too, am a millennial (35 years old). To be quite honest, this censorious trend made its mark in the 90s. However, it took a long time to get to this point. And yes, it is a dogma, for sure. Dissent is a high cost!
I am so sorry, Jennifer! I hear you. It makes you feel a little crazy initially, asking, "Is it me?" The truth is, it is ... insofar as you (me and others) have noticed something quite off.
Well written. Thank you for sharing this. I wish that it could be shared in our schools. Trying to get this message, to teenagers especially, is nearly impossible for the reasons that you've stated. But if it were presented from neutral ground and given as consideration, it could break through the barriers that prevent them from celebrating their autonomy. Regardless, I plan to share it with many people, young and old. Well done.
I agree! If we can get people to think for themselves, break down the logic, and arrive at their own conclusions, I think they’d find a lot of absurdity in their reasoning and conclusions. I appreciate you sharing this!
I generally agree! I think people go through phases in life where they feel more—or less—permission internally to not give a fuck. For me, it’s about telling the story and hoping it resonates with those who are petrified to speak up for themselves, or who just feel relieved knowing there are others out there who think and feel the same way.
It doesn’t necessarily require them to speak out, per se; rather, it’s about easing into that inner permission to feel good about their own thoughts.
Can you elaborate on that? I don’t want to assume your viewpoint without more context, but based on the little that’s been shared so far, are you suggesting that LGB people have imposed themselves in the realm of parenting? That’s an honest question— as a rule of thumb, I am open to discussing it.
Regardless of that specific point, I firmly believe that we need to reinstate the value of the nuclear family and prioritize the importance of family in general.
Have you ever read Frankenstein? Can you imagine the existential unrootedness a child has when he is conceived in the frankentube by eugenic technicians rather than from the marital embrace? This is what ssm depends on. Is it not possible that homosexuals are just as deluded as trans about their true nature? Catholic psychologist Paul Vitz has written a good bit about the marital embrace
I would call IVF slavery triplet, just as abortion is slavery twin.
I strongly encourage you to have some heartfelt conversations with gay people. It is not a choice, nor an option. I was raised in an incredibly religious household and understand where you are coming from, however, your view has been repeatedly debunked by science, and all you are doing is unraveling the progress made in the last decade.
Lol, being straight isn’t encoded into our genes either. Is our, in your words, “true nature” to be asexual then?
Regardless, just because something isn’t encoded into DNA doesn’t mean that —> its expression is a conscious choice. That’s a false dichotomy (it’s either in the genes, or it’s a choice).
Mom and Dad is absolutely encoded in our genes! Each cell in child's body has one DNA strand from Mom and one from Dad.
Conscious choice to be LGBT is tricky to analyze, with all the propaganda and online influencing. Even calling people homophobic for expressing the truth has its impact on vulnerable kids. I would call this "conversion therapy" (to be banned) in the first place.
Yes! Oh how RIGHT you are! Following the "logic" of Mr. Rispo's piece, WHY should we NORMAL and DECENT people gave to endure those...you know... different types who deeply offend me and my straight, white male buddies. I think it's long past time to say, "If ya gonna get rid of dem queers and stupid queer MEN who think they wanna be girls---then WHY should those abnormal groomers and pedo gays, lesbians and especially the BI bastards get off scot-free. ALL abnormal groomers and sickos Have To Go!!! It's a CLEAN SWEEP or anarchy, chaos and the end of all civilization otherwise deh, Edith, ya dingbat! Don't ya agree deh?"
As someone who has worked as a psychologist with transgender youth, I agree that this is an evolving science and we are still figuring out the safety of using medical interventions for children entering puberty. And I want to remind everyone that these treatments are not taken lightly. Rigorous evaluations by psychologists and physicians are required before any intervention can be approved. Parents agonize over long term effects on their children even when children are absolutely sure gender affirming care is what they want.
I agree with Steve and with the author Anthony. There is a great deal we still don’t know, and any decisions are best left to trained professionals, the children, and the parents. No one I’ve seen has ever been casual about the dangers and benefits of this kind of care.
The real danger comes from those who malign these children from a place of fear and anger.
I agree with both of you. Anthony, the problem is the vehemence of those who hate transgender use without recognizing their humanity. This issue was dangerously weaponized by the right, and it’s also imperative that gender affirming care be thoughtful and very careful. The stakes are high and we owe it to transgender youth to offer protection and understanding as they claim their true selves in whatever form turns out to be right for them.
Let me emphasize again this is an evolving science. Sadly, mistakes will likely be made despite the best intentions of all involved.
What is unacceptable is the weaponizing of these children’s bodies for political purposes, and the demonization of them to the extent that it can be dangerous for them to walk down the street or use any bathroom. I believe that is a point that we can all agree on.
When you're demonizing "the other"---in this case anyone who is transgender or transsexual or queer or another self declared designation---you're picking on a minority and choosing to pile on this avalanche of contempt. I'm older than you and the way you talk about people in those communities sounds so very similar to what I heard incessantly from the 70's through the early 00's about "The Gays" and how they were "corrupting our youth" and "convincing normal kids to be perverts" and "causing and spreading AIDS" and "gays and lesbians need to be BANNED from ANYTHING that even remotely might put them near the children" and on and on and on adnausem. Look, issues regarding gender and sexuality are often complex and sometimes puzzling and contradictory. I don't pretend to have any professional or scholarly expertise here or even any personal insights. But I do feel confident that antipathy---however understated and subtle---and harsh, judgemental exclusion or "otherizing" is definitely a bad way to go. Hatred of other entire groups of people---especially people who are being socially and politically castigated and directly legislated against---is something that none of us should be supporting, even tacitly by our silence or indifference. And if any of us are part of a community that has had a history of social, legal and political exclusion, and often subject to unspeakable, intentional, violence and murder, it's incumbent on us to look deeply at who we're helping and who we're hurting with everything we say and write.
Steve, I completely understand why you’d draw from your own past experiences in response to my piece. I have a second cousin—older than me—who is gay and has spoken extensively with me about this topic, particularly around the way the gay community was historically demonized and misunderstood.
That said, I believe there’s a crucial distinction between what happened in those earlier decades and what’s happening now in relation to transgender identity—especially how it manifests today, particularly in children. Historically, being gay or lesbian didn’t require medical intervention, whereas today, many cases of gender dysphoria—especially among minors—are being addressed not just socially, but medically, with profound, often irreversible consequences.
We’ve gone from rightly rejecting the pathologization of LGB people to, in some sense, pathologizing normal developmental confusion in children. Puberty is often disorienting, and the surge of young people suddenly identifying as trans—many of whom would likely grow into gay or gender-nonconforming adults—raises serious red flags. The rise is not necessarily a sign of acceptance but may be, as several researchers suggest, a social contagion effect, especially among adolescent girls.
The reflex to affirm may feel compassionate, but medicine isn’t governed by feeling—it’s governed by the principle of “do no harm.” And right now, we have virtually no long-term, systematized evidence that gender-affirming interventions for minors are beneficial—and plenty of emerging evidence suggesting they may be harmful.
This isn’t about hatred or exclusion. It’s about caution, about protecting vulnerable kids from the unintended consequences of medicalizing what may be a transient experience. It’s also about truth. Gender identity is not the same as sexual orientation. A feminine boy is not a girl. A masculine girl is not a boy. And while we must always protect people’s rights to express themselves safely and freely, we also have to be honest about biology, development, and the limits of self-perception—especially in children.
Dissenting views on this topic aren’t inherently hateful—they may actually be the only safeguard standing between vulnerable children and well-intentioned but ultimately damaging decisions. I say this not to marginalize anyone, but to keep the conversation grounded in what’s real, what’s responsible, and what’s humane in the truest sense of the word.
The majority of people who fail to identify with the gender assigned at birth that was based solely on their genitals, do NOT get any kind of surgery. And if they do, it's long after first seeking medical attention for what has traditionally been termed "gender dysphoria." This is a PRIVATE issue for the person who is experiencing all of this and those who they choose to be a part of this process, generally their family, close and trusted friends, and if they are lucky, a lover or significant other. But it's PRIVATE and shouldn't be a public policy issue.
It's now become a political football and the "transgender obsession" isn't among the "left" or the Democratic Party or even the LGBTQ community; it's become an "issue" exclusively because of Trump and the MAGA Captured and Controlled Republicans who saw "political gold" in this, just as they did in the past, starting in the 70's with a California ballot initiative that would have prohibited gay and lesbian teachers, DADT in the 90's followed by the Orwellian named "Defense Of Marriage" act that Clinton, acting under advice from the hard-right Republican Dick Morris, signed, with the GOP breathing down his back, the 2004 Ohio Ballot Initiative deployed by Karl Rove on behalf of GW Bush's reelection campaign with the cynical objective of bringing out as many homophobic voters as possible to vote against a marriage prohibition measure. And even progressive California voted to restrict human rights for anyone who isn't straight in 2008, again based on prejudice, fear and ignorance, with more than a dash of some real loathing mixed in for good measure.
Why can't you let people who don't identify with the social expectations required by genitalia alone? Why the attacks? Why the implicit tone of shame, blame, mental instability, and the most reprehensible accusation---that they are either 1) Males who are just "pretending" to be women so that they can go into women's restrooms and locker rooms or 2) Sexual predators who are out to brainwash and abuse kids.
All medical care is very personal. There are laws that were created to insure that every one of us can keep our medical records private. Why can't we all extend that same respect to people who are questioning their own gender identification? And if that person is a minor, why aren't those questions exclusively the business of that minor and their parents or guardians?
And what you refer to as truth is often myopic; are a person's genitals and hormones the exclusive determinant of gender? Are you able to even consider for a nanosecond that the entire concept of gender just MIGHT be a tad more complex and ill-defined than we've all been traditionally led to believe? Other cultures on this planet do not subscribe to such a narrow definition of gender. Should those of us who are trying to understand and support our brothers and sisters who are directly dealing with these life challenges be castigated for trying to understand the inherent complexity involved with all of this? Are you that certain and frankly, smug, in holding such ironclad views on something that you're not personally experiencing?
I'm not questioning your motives nor your sincerity but the linchpin of your argument---which, I'll fully acknowledge is THE majority view at this point in time, like "Gays Are Sick and Against What Is Natural" was in 1965---ALWAYS cites "the children" and the "dangers" that these "vulnerable kids" might be subject to. Can you make an argument against the transgender community and their right to live freely as they choose, without invoking the spectre of children being "groomed" or "corrupted" or "indoctrinated" by someone who is transgender? Your ENTIRE rationale rests on what you consider the "protection" of children.
Of course science "isn't about feelings" DUH! I don't recall arguing that it is or ever was. This straw man accusation is more than a bit patronizing---regardless of whether you intended it as such. Yes, even non clinicians tend to know that the first rule of medicine, going back to antiquity is "Do No Harm." And who would disagree with that? I do find it interesting that you only see potential harm for those underage people who choose to go through gender affirmation care. Yes, in some cases, people have second thoughts, weeks, months or even many years later. That IS a calculated risk and yes, the odds of a mistake in judgement are going to be higher in someone underage.
But harm is also done when even the option to consider such medical treatment is absolutely prohibited by the law. Forcing a child to endure life and accept traditional gender roles that are contrary to who they really are is also very harmful. I cannot believe that you're entirely unaware of this and that you would choose to simply pretend that there aren't very traumatic and harmful consequences for a child who is legally restricted from even considering options that they, their parents and their physician all agree to be in their best interest. Yes, puberty, as virtually all adults remember, can be a living hell to endure; making it worse for kids by codifying the shame and stigma for anyone who doesn't conform to traditional gender roles is indeed harmful as well.
I also take great exception to what you wrote here: "And right now, we have virtually no long-term, systematized evidence that gender-affirming interventions for minors are beneficial—and plenty of emerging evidence suggesting they may be harmful." Interesting that you take what is clearly an emerging field of scientific research, involving multiple fields of knowledge and academic disciplines, and DEFINITIVELY CONCLUDE that there is "no evidence" that gender-affirming care for minors is beneficial, but "plenty of evidence" that it just might be harmful. Really? Based on what, exactly? What journals are you citing? Which studies? How many of those studies can be easily classified as "evidence of beneficial" versus "evidence of harm?" Do you think that at least a few of those studies would conclude nothing definitive, or mixed results, or something more nuanced and complicated, depending on the perspective of whomever might be reviewing it? Or that even within the team there were different conclusions reached? I'm skeptical. If there was such a plethora of evidence proving the harm from such medical interventions on minors, why isn't there a clear, compelling case to be made about this? Why isn't there an overwhelming consensus in the medical community, particularly among physicians and scientists working in the fields of adolescent medicine? And why are the laws regarding this so different from state to state and nation to nation? If the evidence of widespread harm is so cogent then why haven't we seen an overwhelming consensus among the scientists and doctors studying this, along the lines of anthropogenic climate change or vaccine efficacy?
If the penis or the vulva is your only measure of what constitutes gender then I can see why someone would accept this seemingly straightforward, absolute, cookie cutter definition of gender; one that is exclusively biological and one dimensional. But these changing views on what defines gender---and sexuality---aren't just the result of "social contagion"---which implies that you've caught a disease, like the flu; now THERE's a vaccine that even the most rabid MAGA Moron could get behind with gusto!
There are multiple reasons why this is happening. And to dismiss it as just some sort of adolescent fad is as condescending and arrogant as it is obtuse and out of touch with reality. There's a reason why a lot of young people just see those views as symptoms of denial and cluelessness on the part of we older folks.
Do you know anyone who is transgender or gender non-conforming? Or do you know any parents or siblings of a transgender or gender non-conforming child? I've been fortunate enough to know both and it's based on those experiences where I've listened more than I talked and precluded any immediate judgments, that I've learned a lot about the struggles of these kids and their families. I'm not in a position to say what is right or wrong for them; and that's the whole point. Again, this is a very private, personal experience and passing laws that restrict options for the patient, their family and their doctors are shortsighted and often motivated by prejudice, fear and yes, contempt for those who have the "audacity" to challenge social expectations.
I've watched in horror as some of these kids have endured vicious attacks, some verbal, some physical, death threats, vandalism to their cars or homes, demonization, online humiliation and worse. About the time of the murder of Matthew Shepard, in 1998, I remember reading another news story about a transgender person who was viciously attacked in public and beaten nearly to death by someone who became aware that this was a "man dressed up like a woman." The part of the story that made a lasting impression on me at the time was what the perpetrator of this heinous crime said when he was apprehended. He told the arresting officers that, "You don't understand! He was wearing HIGH HEELS AND A DRESS!" What stayed with me was the attacker's implicit expectation that his "explanation" would be somehow understood and maybe even allow him to escape any penalty for his crime.
Why it is so important to some people to have SOME group of humans to exclude, label, diminish and ostracize is a mystery that continues to baffle me. But it tells us all something about the frailties and contradictions of being human.
What a beautifully written article Anthony. I am probably an atypical commenter here. I am a 71 year old conservative woman married to a man. But during the last 8 or so years, my business partner, friends, children and other relatives have decided that their “politics” were more important. More than classifying what I feel to my political or religious beliefs, I feel it is just plain common sense. I have no problem with who someone “loves”. I have a problem with exposing children to sex and making life altering changes to them. I questioned the Covid vaccine which I ended up getting so I could see my new grandson. Why was a criminal like George Floyd being lauded as some kind of hero? Why are so many young people anti semantic? Stand your ground. We all are entitled to our inalienable rights and in the end, you will not be alone. Those are not “your people”.
Thank you so much for this comment! We need a "reset button" for common sense!
This post cut me like a knife. I’m a gay moderate/leans conservative in Austin and I’ve recently been distancing myself (or found myself distanced by) from some of my more progressive friends. I used to be part of a regular dinner group but left after 1) one member sent me several heated messages over a NYTimes op-ed I shared 2) another member said I don’t care about gay Christians when I questioned the wisdom of a church hosting a drag show and 3) another member said I was engaging in censorship when I raised concerns about a church board member posting things like “Political violence is the most American of all values” after the first attempted Trump assassination.
I am so sorry you had to go through this, Ryan. The moral grandstanding is so toxic.
Welcome to the last decade, brother. It’s what I call, Mean Girls or “You can’t sit with us” politick. It’s based on moral grandstanding and cliquish exclusion.
And it’s not working.
I really enjoyed your “Mean Girls” post. I’ve seen so many of those dynamics firsthand
Thank you! Yes, it's popular with folks—no doubt for many of the same reasons this article resonates with them.
With Columbia in the self imposed spotlight, how does this sanity-shift reflect on the university?
That's hard to answer because Columbia is a massive mess at the moment. The university is in a LOT of trouble right now, perhaps more than people realize. I am just trying to maintain my sanity while there!
You could take advantage of your proximity and explain what is actually happening. From your point of view.
From the outside in, it appears to be an implosion. Self inflicted.
To whom you are attracted sexually is purely subjective and therefore cannot reasonably be contested by an outside observer.
Where you decide to live your life on a spectrum of superficial, stereotypical male to female attributes (and we all do) is also purely subjective and similarly cannot be questioned.
However, your biological sex reflects an objective reality which cannot be changed by your subjective personal view and futile attempts to do so can result in serious health impacts to you as well as harms to members of the sex you are impersonating (primarily women).
Others who are grounded in objective reality should never be forced to accept your subjective version of your actual biological sex.
Finally, it's past time for the LGB community to separate themselves from the trans activists who are trying to take away the rights of women to fairness in sports and to privacy and safety in their restrooms, locker rooms and prisons. They also advocate for the chemical and surgical mutilation of children many of whom would grow up gay.
Their actions are evil and the
understandable negative reaction to the harm they are causing is spilling over to innocent people who are just going about their business, marrying and leading their lives.
Yeah, I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, the bad actors use compassion as a disguise.
Oh, how RIGHT you are! EXTREMELY RIGHT most people would say! And how noble of you to encourage gays, lesbians and bisexuals---or "normal gay guys" as the blessed JD Vance calls them---to exclude, ostracize and demonize human beings who identify themselves as transexuals and queers! How sweet, insightful and deeply compassionate. I hope you teach your children to do the same because there is nothing as nurturing and character building as encouraging hatred and fear of "them"---whoever you decide belongs in that category! BRAVO! (Now get back to congratulating each other on how good you felt, reading this fearful, contradictory and self-pitying whine.)
I’m living, breathing proof that you can be genuinely repelled by the woke/cultural Left without moving Rightward in inch. Feels perfectly fine to me.
I sense that a good number of people who joined the political migration rightward will begin to nudge back toward the left in the coming months. Having been firmly on the left for most of my adult life, I can confidently say that my aperture for what I value has widened and become more resolute here in the center-right. I teeter between that space and the left of center. Though I get your point entirely, it is possible to reject the dogma of progressivism while still embracing progressive ideals!
Well said. Just to clarify, I’ve always been and remain more to the left on economic issues. I’ve sometimes described myself as an unwoke social democrat.
Thank you for sharing your experience- I’m stunned to read what sounds like almost my exact experience. Specifically I began to question so much during BLM. I could go on but just know it helps to hear there is someone else having this same experience with Democrats.
I hope you share your experience sometime! It's something to have lived through these events.
This is a beautifully written piece, well reasoned and breathtakingly honest. I admire your bravery. It reassures me to know that there are smart and independent thinkers in a vast world of conformity.
Thank you so much, Yael! I hope it inspires others to feel good about thinking freely and expressing their views.
I have been unfriended on FB for the most bigoted reasons, on their part. Gentle prodding is seen as heresy. Using the Socratic method is seen as heresy. You either wear the mantle that racism is the excuse for everything, or they pull out the guillotine. One guy posted that 'anyone who isn't on my side, get off my friends list' (there are many such types in my FB feed). How do they square that with their self-proclaimed tolerance? I knew, when I commented that actually, there is a difference between free speech and burning down buildings -- then offered my experience as a professor at a progressive NYC university, and that I teach international students who don't give a rat's ass about our politics, they just want to freely go to the classes they paid dearly for -- got me unfriended. What kind of person does this? NOT A LIBERAL ONE.
Many take umbrage with continuing to use the word 'liberal' to describe these people. They are bigots. Not liberals.
I know precisely this feeling. I had to deactivate my Facebook account. I haven't looked back. I am sorry it happened to you as well. We aren't alone!
We should all be so fortunate to emerge from our experiences with this level of insight and confidence.
Peter, thank you so much! I always appreciate you—your feedback as well as your kind words :-)
I find this very disheartening. As a gay millennial I never felt that I had to conform to the views of a putative “lgbt community”. Most of my friends are straight, and other than dating (and eventually marrying) a person of my own sex, I felt no different, nor was ever expected or pressured to assume any political views due to my sexual orientation. I always considered my ability to be accepted as “normal” to be the pinnacle of liberal American championing of gay rights and was grateful that I wasn’t born in an earlier generation. I also used to assume and hope that things would be even better for the younger generation. So I find it very sad and disheartening if gen z gays in a supposedly liberal place like columbia now limit themselves or are marginalized into a primarily “lgbt” social circle which forces on them certain dogma. That’s light years from my exprience and a huge setback if true.
I think you're right! I, too, am a millennial (35 years old). To be quite honest, this censorious trend made its mark in the 90s. However, it took a long time to get to this point. And yes, it is a dogma, for sure. Dissent is a high cost!
You are not alone!!
:-)
This was timely, I have been struggling with being left by the left
I am so sorry, Jennifer! I hear you. It makes you feel a little crazy initially, asking, "Is it me?" The truth is, it is ... insofar as you (me and others) have noticed something quite off.
Well written. Thank you for sharing this. I wish that it could be shared in our schools. Trying to get this message, to teenagers especially, is nearly impossible for the reasons that you've stated. But if it were presented from neutral ground and given as consideration, it could break through the barriers that prevent them from celebrating their autonomy. Regardless, I plan to share it with many people, young and old. Well done.
I agree! If we can get people to think for themselves, break down the logic, and arrive at their own conclusions, I think they’d find a lot of absurdity in their reasoning and conclusions. I appreciate you sharing this!
@Anthony Rispo
I discovered that being 98% full of don't-give-a-fucks works very well in dealing with the various narratives that I endure.
You might want to try not giving a fuck and seeing how that works for you.
I generally agree! I think people go through phases in life where they feel more—or less—permission internally to not give a fuck. For me, it’s about telling the story and hoping it resonates with those who are petrified to speak up for themselves, or who just feel relieved knowing there are others out there who think and feel the same way.
It doesn’t necessarily require them to speak out, per se; rather, it’s about easing into that inner permission to feel good about their own thoughts.
So then, after dethroning T, one might work on that pesky LGB which denies mom and dad the respect they deserve.
Can you elaborate on that? I don’t want to assume your viewpoint without more context, but based on the little that’s been shared so far, are you suggesting that LGB people have imposed themselves in the realm of parenting? That’s an honest question— as a rule of thumb, I am open to discussing it.
Regardless of that specific point, I firmly believe that we need to reinstate the value of the nuclear family and prioritize the importance of family in general.
Have you ever read Frankenstein? Can you imagine the existential unrootedness a child has when he is conceived in the frankentube by eugenic technicians rather than from the marital embrace? This is what ssm depends on. Is it not possible that homosexuals are just as deluded as trans about their true nature? Catholic psychologist Paul Vitz has written a good bit about the marital embrace
I would call IVF slavery triplet, just as abortion is slavery twin.
@Vote Created Equal
I strongly encourage you to have some heartfelt conversations with gay people. It is not a choice, nor an option. I was raised in an incredibly religious household and understand where you are coming from, however, your view has been repeatedly debunked by science, and all you are doing is unraveling the progress made in the last decade.
You need a gay best friend:-)
It has not been debunked by science. Twin studies have exhaustively shown the homosexuality is not in the genes.
@Vote Created Equal
Lol, being straight isn’t encoded into our genes either. Is our, in your words, “true nature” to be asexual then?
Regardless, just because something isn’t encoded into DNA doesn’t mean that —> its expression is a conscious choice. That’s a false dichotomy (it’s either in the genes, or it’s a choice).
Mom and Dad is absolutely encoded in our genes! Each cell in child's body has one DNA strand from Mom and one from Dad.
Conscious choice to be LGBT is tricky to analyze, with all the propaganda and online influencing. Even calling people homophobic for expressing the truth has its impact on vulnerable kids. I would call this "conversion therapy" (to be banned) in the first place.
Yes! Oh how RIGHT you are! Following the "logic" of Mr. Rispo's piece, WHY should we NORMAL and DECENT people gave to endure those...you know... different types who deeply offend me and my straight, white male buddies. I think it's long past time to say, "If ya gonna get rid of dem queers and stupid queer MEN who think they wanna be girls---then WHY should those abnormal groomers and pedo gays, lesbians and especially the BI bastards get off scot-free. ALL abnormal groomers and sickos Have To Go!!! It's a CLEAN SWEEP or anarchy, chaos and the end of all civilization otherwise deh, Edith, ya dingbat! Don't ya agree deh?"
Maybe I'm missing something. What about my “logic” is necessary to make the point by Vote Created Equal?
As someone who has worked as a psychologist with transgender youth, I agree that this is an evolving science and we are still figuring out the safety of using medical interventions for children entering puberty. And I want to remind everyone that these treatments are not taken lightly. Rigorous evaluations by psychologists and physicians are required before any intervention can be approved. Parents agonize over long term effects on their children even when children are absolutely sure gender affirming care is what they want.
I agree with Steve and with the author Anthony. There is a great deal we still don’t know, and any decisions are best left to trained professionals, the children, and the parents. No one I’ve seen has ever been casual about the dangers and benefits of this kind of care.
The real danger comes from those who malign these children from a place of fear and anger.
I agree with both of you. Anthony, the problem is the vehemence of those who hate transgender use without recognizing their humanity. This issue was dangerously weaponized by the right, and it’s also imperative that gender affirming care be thoughtful and very careful. The stakes are high and we owe it to transgender youth to offer protection and understanding as they claim their true selves in whatever form turns out to be right for them.
Let me emphasize again this is an evolving science. Sadly, mistakes will likely be made despite the best intentions of all involved.
What is unacceptable is the weaponizing of these children’s bodies for political purposes, and the demonization of them to the extent that it can be dangerous for them to walk down the street or use any bathroom. I believe that is a point that we can all agree on.
When you're demonizing "the other"---in this case anyone who is transgender or transsexual or queer or another self declared designation---you're picking on a minority and choosing to pile on this avalanche of contempt. I'm older than you and the way you talk about people in those communities sounds so very similar to what I heard incessantly from the 70's through the early 00's about "The Gays" and how they were "corrupting our youth" and "convincing normal kids to be perverts" and "causing and spreading AIDS" and "gays and lesbians need to be BANNED from ANYTHING that even remotely might put them near the children" and on and on and on adnausem. Look, issues regarding gender and sexuality are often complex and sometimes puzzling and contradictory. I don't pretend to have any professional or scholarly expertise here or even any personal insights. But I do feel confident that antipathy---however understated and subtle---and harsh, judgemental exclusion or "otherizing" is definitely a bad way to go. Hatred of other entire groups of people---especially people who are being socially and politically castigated and directly legislated against---is something that none of us should be supporting, even tacitly by our silence or indifference. And if any of us are part of a community that has had a history of social, legal and political exclusion, and often subject to unspeakable, intentional, violence and murder, it's incumbent on us to look deeply at who we're helping and who we're hurting with everything we say and write.
Steve, I completely understand why you’d draw from your own past experiences in response to my piece. I have a second cousin—older than me—who is gay and has spoken extensively with me about this topic, particularly around the way the gay community was historically demonized and misunderstood.
That said, I believe there’s a crucial distinction between what happened in those earlier decades and what’s happening now in relation to transgender identity—especially how it manifests today, particularly in children. Historically, being gay or lesbian didn’t require medical intervention, whereas today, many cases of gender dysphoria—especially among minors—are being addressed not just socially, but medically, with profound, often irreversible consequences.
We’ve gone from rightly rejecting the pathologization of LGB people to, in some sense, pathologizing normal developmental confusion in children. Puberty is often disorienting, and the surge of young people suddenly identifying as trans—many of whom would likely grow into gay or gender-nonconforming adults—raises serious red flags. The rise is not necessarily a sign of acceptance but may be, as several researchers suggest, a social contagion effect, especially among adolescent girls.
The reflex to affirm may feel compassionate, but medicine isn’t governed by feeling—it’s governed by the principle of “do no harm.” And right now, we have virtually no long-term, systematized evidence that gender-affirming interventions for minors are beneficial—and plenty of emerging evidence suggesting they may be harmful.
This isn’t about hatred or exclusion. It’s about caution, about protecting vulnerable kids from the unintended consequences of medicalizing what may be a transient experience. It’s also about truth. Gender identity is not the same as sexual orientation. A feminine boy is not a girl. A masculine girl is not a boy. And while we must always protect people’s rights to express themselves safely and freely, we also have to be honest about biology, development, and the limits of self-perception—especially in children.
Dissenting views on this topic aren’t inherently hateful—they may actually be the only safeguard standing between vulnerable children and well-intentioned but ultimately damaging decisions. I say this not to marginalize anyone, but to keep the conversation grounded in what’s real, what’s responsible, and what’s humane in the truest sense of the word.
The majority of people who fail to identify with the gender assigned at birth that was based solely on their genitals, do NOT get any kind of surgery. And if they do, it's long after first seeking medical attention for what has traditionally been termed "gender dysphoria." This is a PRIVATE issue for the person who is experiencing all of this and those who they choose to be a part of this process, generally their family, close and trusted friends, and if they are lucky, a lover or significant other. But it's PRIVATE and shouldn't be a public policy issue.
It's now become a political football and the "transgender obsession" isn't among the "left" or the Democratic Party or even the LGBTQ community; it's become an "issue" exclusively because of Trump and the MAGA Captured and Controlled Republicans who saw "political gold" in this, just as they did in the past, starting in the 70's with a California ballot initiative that would have prohibited gay and lesbian teachers, DADT in the 90's followed by the Orwellian named "Defense Of Marriage" act that Clinton, acting under advice from the hard-right Republican Dick Morris, signed, with the GOP breathing down his back, the 2004 Ohio Ballot Initiative deployed by Karl Rove on behalf of GW Bush's reelection campaign with the cynical objective of bringing out as many homophobic voters as possible to vote against a marriage prohibition measure. And even progressive California voted to restrict human rights for anyone who isn't straight in 2008, again based on prejudice, fear and ignorance, with more than a dash of some real loathing mixed in for good measure.
Why can't you let people who don't identify with the social expectations required by genitalia alone? Why the attacks? Why the implicit tone of shame, blame, mental instability, and the most reprehensible accusation---that they are either 1) Males who are just "pretending" to be women so that they can go into women's restrooms and locker rooms or 2) Sexual predators who are out to brainwash and abuse kids.
All medical care is very personal. There are laws that were created to insure that every one of us can keep our medical records private. Why can't we all extend that same respect to people who are questioning their own gender identification? And if that person is a minor, why aren't those questions exclusively the business of that minor and their parents or guardians?
And what you refer to as truth is often myopic; are a person's genitals and hormones the exclusive determinant of gender? Are you able to even consider for a nanosecond that the entire concept of gender just MIGHT be a tad more complex and ill-defined than we've all been traditionally led to believe? Other cultures on this planet do not subscribe to such a narrow definition of gender. Should those of us who are trying to understand and support our brothers and sisters who are directly dealing with these life challenges be castigated for trying to understand the inherent complexity involved with all of this? Are you that certain and frankly, smug, in holding such ironclad views on something that you're not personally experiencing?
I'm not questioning your motives nor your sincerity but the linchpin of your argument---which, I'll fully acknowledge is THE majority view at this point in time, like "Gays Are Sick and Against What Is Natural" was in 1965---ALWAYS cites "the children" and the "dangers" that these "vulnerable kids" might be subject to. Can you make an argument against the transgender community and their right to live freely as they choose, without invoking the spectre of children being "groomed" or "corrupted" or "indoctrinated" by someone who is transgender? Your ENTIRE rationale rests on what you consider the "protection" of children.
Of course science "isn't about feelings" DUH! I don't recall arguing that it is or ever was. This straw man accusation is more than a bit patronizing---regardless of whether you intended it as such. Yes, even non clinicians tend to know that the first rule of medicine, going back to antiquity is "Do No Harm." And who would disagree with that? I do find it interesting that you only see potential harm for those underage people who choose to go through gender affirmation care. Yes, in some cases, people have second thoughts, weeks, months or even many years later. That IS a calculated risk and yes, the odds of a mistake in judgement are going to be higher in someone underage.
But harm is also done when even the option to consider such medical treatment is absolutely prohibited by the law. Forcing a child to endure life and accept traditional gender roles that are contrary to who they really are is also very harmful. I cannot believe that you're entirely unaware of this and that you would choose to simply pretend that there aren't very traumatic and harmful consequences for a child who is legally restricted from even considering options that they, their parents and their physician all agree to be in their best interest. Yes, puberty, as virtually all adults remember, can be a living hell to endure; making it worse for kids by codifying the shame and stigma for anyone who doesn't conform to traditional gender roles is indeed harmful as well.
I also take great exception to what you wrote here: "And right now, we have virtually no long-term, systematized evidence that gender-affirming interventions for minors are beneficial—and plenty of emerging evidence suggesting they may be harmful." Interesting that you take what is clearly an emerging field of scientific research, involving multiple fields of knowledge and academic disciplines, and DEFINITIVELY CONCLUDE that there is "no evidence" that gender-affirming care for minors is beneficial, but "plenty of evidence" that it just might be harmful. Really? Based on what, exactly? What journals are you citing? Which studies? How many of those studies can be easily classified as "evidence of beneficial" versus "evidence of harm?" Do you think that at least a few of those studies would conclude nothing definitive, or mixed results, or something more nuanced and complicated, depending on the perspective of whomever might be reviewing it? Or that even within the team there were different conclusions reached? I'm skeptical. If there was such a plethora of evidence proving the harm from such medical interventions on minors, why isn't there a clear, compelling case to be made about this? Why isn't there an overwhelming consensus in the medical community, particularly among physicians and scientists working in the fields of adolescent medicine? And why are the laws regarding this so different from state to state and nation to nation? If the evidence of widespread harm is so cogent then why haven't we seen an overwhelming consensus among the scientists and doctors studying this, along the lines of anthropogenic climate change or vaccine efficacy?
If the penis or the vulva is your only measure of what constitutes gender then I can see why someone would accept this seemingly straightforward, absolute, cookie cutter definition of gender; one that is exclusively biological and one dimensional. But these changing views on what defines gender---and sexuality---aren't just the result of "social contagion"---which implies that you've caught a disease, like the flu; now THERE's a vaccine that even the most rabid MAGA Moron could get behind with gusto!
There are multiple reasons why this is happening. And to dismiss it as just some sort of adolescent fad is as condescending and arrogant as it is obtuse and out of touch with reality. There's a reason why a lot of young people just see those views as symptoms of denial and cluelessness on the part of we older folks.
Do you know anyone who is transgender or gender non-conforming? Or do you know any parents or siblings of a transgender or gender non-conforming child? I've been fortunate enough to know both and it's based on those experiences where I've listened more than I talked and precluded any immediate judgments, that I've learned a lot about the struggles of these kids and their families. I'm not in a position to say what is right or wrong for them; and that's the whole point. Again, this is a very private, personal experience and passing laws that restrict options for the patient, their family and their doctors are shortsighted and often motivated by prejudice, fear and yes, contempt for those who have the "audacity" to challenge social expectations.
I've watched in horror as some of these kids have endured vicious attacks, some verbal, some physical, death threats, vandalism to their cars or homes, demonization, online humiliation and worse. About the time of the murder of Matthew Shepard, in 1998, I remember reading another news story about a transgender person who was viciously attacked in public and beaten nearly to death by someone who became aware that this was a "man dressed up like a woman." The part of the story that made a lasting impression on me at the time was what the perpetrator of this heinous crime said when he was apprehended. He told the arresting officers that, "You don't understand! He was wearing HIGH HEELS AND A DRESS!" What stayed with me was the attacker's implicit expectation that his "explanation" would be somehow understood and maybe even allow him to escape any penalty for his crime.
Why it is so important to some people to have SOME group of humans to exclude, label, diminish and ostracize is a mystery that continues to baffle me. But it tells us all something about the frailties and contradictions of being human.