transgender rights – My Mental Model

Where I draw the line with the right

The city I live in is relatively progressive. Not necessarily in a ‘leftist’ sorta way, but more so in a classic liberal sort of way. In this landscape, it’s difficult for right-wing nonsense to get any kind of traction. But that’s not to say that I don’t see it. I have a close friend who has started following some of the center-right media like Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder. He’s been testing me with some of his nonsense. So perhaps it’s time to call it out here too.

Trans people are people. I don’t think we’d be in this free speech mess around gender pronouns if we hadn’t collectively been giant assholes to transgender people. Throughout history, we’ve treated those who we didn’t understand with contempt and history has never looked kindly upon it. It happened with people from unfamiliar cultures, it happened with people with unfamiliar skin colors, it happened with people with an unfamiliar sexuality, and it happened with trans people. Conservatism has never been on the right side of human rights because the role of conservatism is to avoid change. If those who are different are understood, accepted, and appreciated, they don’t special protections.

Full-time work needs to pay a living wage. There’s a suggestion that a minimum wage is a bad idea. Apparently, by allowing businesses to pay wages lower than the current minimum wage, workers will make more money. That open market model only works if two forces are firmly in play: A strong incentive to pay the workers as little as possible (to maximize company profits), and a strong incentive to pay the workers as much as possible (to maximize talent acquisition). If the incentive to maximize company profits is stronger than the incentive to maximize talent acquisition, there is a strong downward pressure on wages. That downward pressure can be so strong that someone working 40 hours a week may not make enough to make a living wage. If we’re in an environment where the cost of living is rising quickly, it gets even worse. And who benefits? Clearly it’s not the worker. The business will benefit from better margins, but for how long? An underpaid workforce is more of a liability than an asset. When business owners under pay their employees less, they rely more heavily on social assistance programs. These programs are funded by tax payers, and not the ones who aren’t making enough money to pay any significant tax. Paying your laborers less than what it costs them to live a middle class life is a terrible idea for any economy.

Racism still exists. Racism exists, sexism exists, ageism exists… there’s no lack of ways in which we try to generalize others to their detriment. I wish we could solve them all at once by understanding that prejudice leads to inaccurate understandings and bad decisions.. but we have to start somewhere. And I’m not interested in addressing controversial racism like who got kicked out of a Starbucks or who’s modelling a black panther costume. I’m talking about that KKK shit. That sand n*gger shit. That BUILD THE WALL shit. That is some of the ugliest behavior I’ve seen in western society and the right needs to do a better job of standing up to it. Everyone on the right wishes the moderate left would call out their more extreme counter-parts. Well everyone on the left wants the same from the right. It can’t be a, ‘sure, we all know that racism exists but it’s not the problem here.’ Without racism, we wouldn’t have Trump. Without racism, we wouldn’t have a government shutdown right now. Without racism, Fox News wouldn’t have been fear mongering around a migrant caravan. It might not be at the center of all our problems, but it does seem to make most of our problems worse. Identity politics exist on both sides, and both sides need to hold their crazies accountable.

Stop cherry picking your science. Climate change is real. Humans have contributed to it significantly. The scientific consensus here is over 99%. Why are you still arguing this? I understand if you’re a stake holder in the fossil fuel industry, but otherwise you’re just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Even if it wasn’t man made, our window of opportunity for maintaining an ecosystem that’s habitable for humans is closing. We should be all hands on deck, but the right is dragging their feet. If you have no interest in listening to scientists on this, then you’re about as useful as those on the far left which ignore biology to advance their gender politics agenda.

Religion. Religion exists across the political spectrum, but the right seems to have their own approach to it. The evangelicals denounced a democratic president for having an immoral character, then celebrated Trump on the basis that moral character isn’t an important consideration. The religious right also argues that abortion is a religious issue when the bible offers no such guidance beyond telling you how to do one. They’re also quick to point out all the flaws of religions like Islam, while failing to acknowledging the dark history of western religions or the issues of today. And to make it all worse, politicians are now abusing religion again, excusing their actions as some twisted act of god. Next time you see a politician say “well that’s what I believe”, look closely.

Feminism is a big deal. I’m not talking about the man-hating variety that seems to be pushing it’s way into the mainstream today. I’m talking about a movement that started centuries ago.. maybe even millennia. It’s about our species evolving to the point where men didn’t have to be hunters and gatherers, and women didn’t have to forage and care for the kids. It’s about men no longer having to go out and do hard labor and women being able to join the work force. It’s about moving past our traditional blueprints of what men and women were supposed to be, and exploring the freedom of what we can be within a modern society. One of the smartest things western society ever did was bring women into the work force. There’s still more ground to cover.

You overestimate your abilities. I used to assume that people who were wealthy were naturally hardworking and very smart. Then I started to meet some of them. Many of them were smart and many of them were hard working, but what they were more likely to have in common was an inflated sense of ego. They took responsibility for their actions, and since they were successful, they were responsible for their success. But then I would look behind them and see an incredible amount of support. More often than not, it included a good family, a private school, an ivy league education, connections, and an inheritance. Bit of a stretch to say you’re responsible for all those factors too. What I’ve noticed from the right is that tend to equate financial success with human value. Those who find a path to financial success overestimate what their contribution was to that point, and underestimate what was already in motion. And then they dismiss those who are less fortunate as lazy or uninspired.

You’re selfish. Something else I’ve noticed about the right is their tendency to be selfish, after they’ve ‘made it’. When I was younger, I wasn’t all that interested in helping my fellow human. It was about being as successful as possible, as soon as possible, and then helping my fellow human. I see a lot of people take a similar path, but when they arrive at success, they’re much less interested in helping others. Now it’s about paying the least amount of tax possible, or doing away with social assistance programs that you don’t personally use, or avoiding giving money to the homeless ‘because they’re just gonna use it on drugs anyways’. And what I find remarkable is that liberals do this too, just not when they’re poor. The rich shouldn’t give to the poor out of sympathy. The few should invest in the many, because none of us truly do anything on our own.

Your immigration policies suck. Besides the fact that they’re currently rooted in racism, they’re also shortsighted. Most people would be surprised to find that children of wealthy families make ill-equipped leaders. But it’s not that hard to understand why. When you go through adversity, you experience challenges that you wouldn’t otherwise have access to. Parents who have fled to the US from a harsh environment provide a powerful and unique environment for children to grow up in. That home is more likely to produce a world leader or Pulitzer prize winner than someone who was so rich that they didn’t need to bother learning the local language. Written on the statue of liberty is, ““Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” America is supposed to be the land of opportunity, where you escape from terrible conditions and are given the chance to make something of yourself. This is the secret sauce of the American immigration policy. If we close the doors to all that have made us great, and only open our doors to those who are already ‘great’, I think we’re in trouble.

You can be an argumentative dick. I know, because I used to be one too. Back in university, everyone was for gay marriage but me. I had no issues with gay people… or them getting married.. but I didn’t like that everyone was agreeing with one another on something they hadn’t really thought about. So I said I was down with them being legally married, but wasn’t OK with them appropriating a ceremony from a religion which was expressly against gay marriage. I may have had a point, but I was arguing for the sake of arguing. I see this happen from the right so often. You realize that your up against someone who hasn’t quite thought things through, and rather than help them get there, you pick them apart and try to make them feel like they don’t know what they’re talking about. Meanwhile, it’s quite possible that they had a point and just weren’t able to argue it effectively. Or maybe they had a good idea but didn’t quite know how to make it a reality. Fantastic, you won that argument.. but at what cost? At what point is the pursuit of truth more important to you than ‘winning’?

The relentless spin. If I were to guess, the right is more intelligent than the left. It’s not that a ‘right-wing’ ideology produces smarter people, it’s that intelligence lends to success,, success lends to wanting to keep things as-is, and wanting to keep things as-is lends to conservatism. You know, conserving the good life. So when the less fortunate get together and say things aren’t fair, we need change… you say that things are fair, that you’re an example of how to be successful, and to just keep working hard. But then the less fortunate notice that there are far more hardworking poor people than rich people. At the end of the day, the left might not have the best idea for how to get things done, but they are often right about what needs to be done. And no matter what they present you with, you’ll spin it to your favor. If you were up against someone who could debate you properly, you’d look absolutely foolish. But the mainstream media doesn’t provide that format so everyone’s left speaking into their echo chambers. I can’t tell you how many times colleagues of mine have tried to spin the most ridiculous Trump lies into something reasonable. Recently, they’ve started to give up.. suggesting that it’s not what he says but what he does. Well he’s behaving like the most compromised or corrupt politician in modern American history.. and you’re still trying to spin it.

You don’t want a meritocracy. I’m a big fan of equal opportunity over equal outcome. So is the right.. it’s one of their primary arguments against social security programs. The left hasn’t been able to wrap their head around the concept in a way that fits their ideology. I think the political spectrum is generally clueless about what a meritocracy really entails. For example, there’s a good chance that in a true meritocracy, most top CEOs would still be men. But you know what else happens in a meritocracy? Those responsible for educating future generations aren’t living paycheck to paycheck. But perhaps the most powerful example, in a meritocracy, inheritance wouldn’t exist. In a meritocracy, you receive resources in exchange for the creation of value. The more value you produce, the more resources you have to work with. In that model, someone like an Elon Musk would be one of the most well resourced individuals in the world while someone like Trump would be broke. But in a world where Trump can leave billions in wealth to his children.. something’s not right. In a world where future generations of your family can enjoy substantial resources despite having not created any value… something not right. In a meritocracy, Harvard isn’t filled with legacy students and lucrative internships aren’t filled with people who’s parents know an executive at the company. That whole idea of an inside track.. the powerful helping the powerful.. none of it exists.

If we could find a way to cast aside all the nonsense… from all sides of the political spectrum… and come together to be effective for the greater good… we could probably do something pretty darn special.

Where I Draw the Line with the Left

I spent a great deal of time and effort staying off the political spectrum. I strongly suspect that the political divide of left and right, or red and blue is a product of the governing class. Government reform would require a united voter base. So they divide and conquer.

Something I’ve observed is that those on the far ends of the political spectrum tend to have a great deal in common. They’re loud. They’re aggressive. They assume the moral high ground. They have questionable beliefs. And they aren’t very reasonable when those beliefs are challenged. I’m not the first to have noticed this either. I think it’s referred to as the horseshoe diagram, and it suggests that the silent majority tend to agree on most reasonable issues.

On this political spectrum, it’s been well documented when the right can go too far. Nazis. When a right-wing ideology starts talking about racial supremacy, that’s a red flag. When they start targeting those of a particular race or religion, blaming them for the country’s problems, that’s a red flag. When they start to deny science to advance their own political agenda, that’s a red flag. An entire generation of Germans learned that in the most painful of ways. So… if that’s where the right can go too far, do we not have similar standards for the left? Equality is not equality unless we are all held to account.

Jordan Peterson has made this question a cornerstone of his debates. He’s often confronted by media personalities who assume that he represents the ‘alt-right’. In most cases, he addresses that claim and acknowledges that while conservatism and tradition can have value, there is absolutely a point at which it goes too far. He often suggests Nazis are a clear example of when the right can go too far. He’ll then ask the interviewer if they could give an example of where the left has gone too far. In most cases, they can’t answer the question. I’ve tried it myself and had a similar experience. On the extreme ends of the political spectrum, it would seem as though you can do no wrong. As long as you’re fighting for a righteous cause, your actions are justified. But when both sides take this approach, and both sides believe in their righteousness, there is no middle ground.

I have no issues holding someone to account for a flawed ideology, regardless of it’s right, left, up, down or sideways. Today, I saw a tweet that was posted to social media that has motivated me to say something. This was a tweet by @legal_feminista. It said:

Let’s enter 2019 with the right energy:

Trans women are women. Sex work is work. Black lives matter. Rape culture is real. Yes all men. Fuck white supremacy. Abolish borders. Free Palestine. Protect indigenous rights. Support mental health. Believe women.

Normally, I wouldn’t pay much attention to something like this as I’ve seen or heard most of it before. But this tweet received about 60,000 likes and 17,000 retweets in about 48 hours. This perspective isn’t an outlier, it’s mainstream. So… let’s dig in and see what we find.

Trans women are women. That depends on how you define women. If gender is a social construct and not determined by biology, then sure, trans women are women. But what about biology? If gender is a social construct, surely, sex must be biological. Otherwise, we’re ignoring the significance of things like the female and male reproductive systems, or the Y chromosome. And what happens when trans women start using the natural advantages afforded to a biological male to put women at a disadvantage? There are now various stories about trans women dominating against female athletes. I’m not sure these competitors would agree that all trans women are women. At some point, I think we’ll have to acknowledge that there is a very real biological component to being a male or a female. But in addition to that, we have masculinity and femininity. Part biology, part psychology, part sociology.. this is what gives us masculine women and feminine men, and really masculine men and really feminine women. Traditionally, we thought that we should all be masculine men or feminine women and it forced many of us to pretend to be people we weren’t. Now we’re a little more open minded. Sex comes primarily in 2 flavors.. with a swirl here and there. But who we become as individuals, well that’s a flavor that’s unique to each individual. It includes how masculine or feminine you are, who you’re attracted to, how you choose to dress.. and as long as it’s consensual, it’s all good. I genuinely think that if we had a little more love for all the unusual ways we turn out, people would be more secure and confident in who they are and less consumed with trying to become someone else.

Sex work is work. Damn right. Got your back on this one sister. Making prostitution illegal is about as sensible as making alcohol and cannabis illegal. By pushing it into the shadows, you put good people at risk. By bringing it into the light, we give ourselves a chance of doing it right.

Black lives matter. Yes, because all lives matter. My issue with the black lives matters movement was that they weren’t on board with all lives matter. I agree that racism against black people exists. I agree that it shows up in matters of police brutality. But I disagree that police brutality is a race issue. Black lives matter had an opportunity to open their doors and champion an All Lives Matters movement that would’ve forced police everywhere to reevaluate how they interact with the public. It could’ve been the solution to police brutality for people of every color. It could’ve been an opportunity for the black community to be leaders for all of America. Instead, ‘all lives matters’ was understood to be an attempt at dismissing their cause or taking the spotlight off the black community. What a missed opportunity. And meanwhile, you have prominent leaders within the BLM community speaking about black racial supremacy to crowds of cheering fans.

Rape culture is real. Maybe. It depends on how you define it. Growing up, my understanding of rape was someone being held down against their will, being fully aware of the experience as it’s happening, kicking and screaming for help, and dealing with the emotional trauma afterwards. It was easy to understand that as one of the most terrible crimes a person could commit. I’m now told that if two people get drunk and have sex, they’ve effectively raped each other because you can’t consent if you’re drunk. I was also told that if a woman gives consent, but changes her mind during sex without telling her partner, if the partner continues, he’s a rapist. I think we’re losing sight of the difference between a violent rape and a regrettable sexual encounter. By no means am I condoning any behavior that remotely resembles rape, but I do think that it’s important to recognize degrees of severity. I think it would be more accurate to say that we have a culture of sexual harassment. But if you stop here without asking why, you’re missing half the equation. I don’t think men want the responsibility of pursuing women for sex. Most are terrible at knowing whether or not a woman is interested in them. Most are clueless at figuring out how to flirt. And most take rejection pretty hard. And to make it worse, in the same way that men have been socialized to pursue sex, women have been socialized to withhold it. If we’re going to find our way out of this mess, I think it starts with honesty and respect. Personally, I vote for women to take over the role of asking guys out for a bit.

Yes all men. No. This is literally sexism 101. It’s like saying that all women are neurotic. Or all black people are prone to crime. Or all Muslims are terrorists. Just because you’ve had bad experiences with some men doesn’t justify you treating all men with the same contempt.

Fuck white supremacy. Fuck all racial supremacy.

Abolish borders. Sure. but how? Who would you pay your taxes to? What area would your democratically elected official preside over? What would be the jurisdiction for the laws you voted for? Or was this just about firing back at Trump for garbage immigration policies?

Free Palestine. We should all look for opportunities to put the guns down and hash things out like like reasonable adults. Unfortunately, religion prevents that.

Protect indigenous rights. Or maybe recognize that indigenous rights, voluntary segregation, and systematic exploitation have destroyed America’s indigenous cultures. I think it’s time to try integration. There’s a great deal we can learn from Native American culture, including finding a more balanced relationship with nature. I think it’s about time we took a real look at their history, and show respect where respect is due. And once we’ve rewritten history to accurately reflect the role of Native American’s in the development of modern western culture, we can begin to heal. And part of that will be learning to heal as one family. If done right, indigenous rights should be no different than any other human rights.

Support mental health. Absolutely. Mental health isn’t as obvious as physical health… but can be that much more impactful. We’re waking up to this reality now.. and there’s a lot of work to be done.

Believe women. No. It would be just as foolish to say, ‘Believe men’. It’s interesting because the last time I saw this, it was ‘believe the victim’. But what happens when the victim is a man? Is it still so believable? The problem isn’t in who we believe, but rather the fact that we should to believe anyone in the first place. Believing someone is assuming they’re telling the truth without knowing if they are. Once you have evidence, you can understand whether or not someone is telling the truth. Without that evidence, you’re left with assumptions. While some women might think so what, it’ll do more good than harm, consider this: What would stop someone from paying a woman to make false claims against a man? Do you believe the woman? Or do you presume innocent until proven guilty? On multiple occasions, people have paid women to make false claims against men. If we believe all women, this will keep happening. No victim is worth abandoning the right to innocence until proven guilty. We should trust those who tell the truth. We should support those who have experienced hardship. We should hold accountable, those who caused harm to others. Regardless of what’s between your legs.