When Culture Wars Go Way Too Far

State efforts to break families over transgender issues threaten foundational American rights.

By
914

Last month The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg published a fascinating interview with Israeli prime minister Yair Lapid. The entire interview is worth reading—especially if you have interest in Israeli politics and the prospects for Middle East peace—but two sentences from the prime minister stood out as particularly insightful. “Everybody is stuck in this left-versus-right traditional dynamic,” he said. “But today, all over the world, it’s centrist versus extremist.”

I wanted to stand up and cheer. Now, to be clear, this is a strange position for me. I’ve always been conservative. In the left versus right context, I’ve always considered myself a man of the right—the Reagan right. But when the extremes grow more extreme, and the classical liberal structure of the American republic is under intellectual and legal attack, suddenly I’m an involuntary moderate. 

So, for example, I’m a person who believes in the traditional Christian doctrines of marriage and sexual morality. I don’t believe in sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. I don’t agree that trans men are “men” or that trans women are “women,” and while I strive to treat every person I encounter with dignity and respect, I don’t use preferred pronouns because their use is a form of assent to a system of belief to which I don’t subscribe.

That makes me pretty far right, correct? Not when the right gets authoritarian or closes its mind and heart to the legacy of real injustice. I’m apparently the conservative movement’s foremost defender of the civil liberties of drag queens. I’m constantly decried as “woke” in part because I don’t discard all of the relevant insights gained from critical race theory, I strongly oppose efforts to “ban” CRT, and also because I believe in multigenerational institutional responsibility to ameliorate the enduring harm caused by centuries of racial oppression. 

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
914
By
Comments (914)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Andrewabranch

    David, I hope I've shown that I'm not a troll, and definitely not your typical, Clairemont-style performative junky who trashes you and your wife.

    https://americanreformer.org/2022/10/pluralism-wont-save-us/

    [You may remember an earlier letter to you, David, that I did NOT publish, back in the Spring.]

    I've written a response.
    _________________________________
    "This is zero sum.

    Do my feelings tell me who I am? Or does who I am tell me how to interpret my feelings?

    Is my body in conflict with who I am? Or is my mind in conflict with who I am?

    There is no appeasement, because the two views cannot co-exist. Ontology—who and what we are irrespective of what we feel—determines what counts as “equal protection” under the law. The state must act in accord with what is true. And if California is right, every state has the legal compelling interest and moral duty to enshrine gender ideology and ignore religious liberty, parents’ rights, or anything else."

    Collapse
  2. R. James

    The argument is over what constitutes abuse. The Right says that conducting procedures designed to alter sexual organs on minors or providing medicinal puberty blockers to minors is child abuse. The Left says that denying such procedures or medications to minors is child abuse. French concedes that "Parents’ rights aren’t unlimited. A state can and must step in to protect children when children are subject to abuse or neglect." But he calls for pluralism and an agreement that states "can express their values and pass their regulations while still remembering a singular moral and constitutional command—leave loving families alone." But French fails to explain how states can express their values which are either giving or denying treatment constitute child abuse and "leave loving families alone" when he himself concedes that child abuse is grounds to separate children from their parents. So, we are at an impasse. Can pluralism be the solution when the society is divided between two separate concepts of what constitutes values and morality? Where is the common ground if we can't even agree on what child abuse is anymore? "A house divided cannot stand."

    Collapse
    1. Genny

      What an excellent comment. With gender identity, altering medical procedures for minors should be put on hold for two reasons: we don't know enough about the effects of these procedures long-term and we don't have a consensus as a nation. Even good policies hurt someone since people have such diverse circumstances, so it should never be expected that a policy will affect all people positively. Physical alteration helps some people with gender issues. Those that might have been helped while this gets sorted out but won't will have to endure the hardship. But we have a popularity of gender expression that has elements of a fad, and permanent policy based on a temporary circumstance is a bad idea. So everyone should back up. Research into a small number of cases could yield valuable information. But instead of splitting apart, we should look at where we could come together, and a common desire to explore this issue and find the best way to proceed, and the UK has already taken this position, is probably best.

      Now, religion. Religious beliefs don't want exploration of a subject. They have decided how they believe, and that's that. But the nation isn't a church and the religious shouldn't have the expectation that it will behave as one. Just like with abortion, when push came to shove, religious beliefs were kicked out of politics on the right when they were shown not to be a winning position. And this is right in politics. The majority should, most times, get the power. With the abortion issue reverting so quickly from religious to political, the religious shouldn't expect the gender issue to automatically go their way either. Prudence should be the integrating way forward.

      Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Pg449works

    I have friends -- Jewish leftists -- who had a trans daughter. Daughter demanded puberty blockers. Mom, a biochemist, said "no". But they would not have been happy had the government made that decision for them.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Paul Hoover

    The "Popular with Members" needs to include the date of the article. Otherwise, how do you know how current the discussion is?

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Karl.Anthony.Moll

    not to be too "facts don't care about your feelings", but it would seem that parents who don't at minimum acknolwedge their children's transgenderism/queerness might in fact be supremely guilty of child abuse. When does a child's well-being overcome a parent's squeimishness or "system of belief to which I don’t subscribe".

    i'm just going to say - parents who legitimately have concerns about their kids getting life changing surgery at a young age, i can theoritically accept, but only as long as this determination is done in consultation with doctors, the child themselves, therapists, and other experts in the child's well-being. however, most people I hear who are loudest on this topic - i can only imagine it would be an awful environment for a queer teen to grow up in. Now consider the following data points, and think about whether the cultural values of the parent or the well being of the child is more important AND whether the parents who are most upset about this are creating a loving welcoming environment where there children can truly express who they are.

    There is a reason teen suicides and teen runaways are disproprotianetly impacting LGBTQ youth

    "Data indicate that 82% of transgender individuals have considered killing themselves and 40% have attempted suicide, with suicidality highest among transgender youth."

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32345113/

    "28% of LGBTQ youth reported experiencing homelessness or housing instability at some point in their lives — and those who did had two to four times the odds of reporting depression, anxiety, self-harm, considering suicide, and attempting suicide compared to those with stable housing."

    https://www.thetrevorproject.org/research-briefs/homelessness-and-housing-instability-among-lgbtq-youth-feb-2022/

    "LGBTQ youth are also disproportionately represented in runaway and homeless youth shelters. Research has shown that while only 4.5% of the general population identified as LGBTQ, as many as 40% of the homeless youth population identify as LGBTQ, nearly ten times higher"

    https://ocfs.ny.gov/programs/youth/LGBTQ/research.php

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Mchristenson

      A lot of those stats thrown around are based on faulty studies, yet they somehow persist and lead people to conclusions like “listen to the teenager” (something we’ve never before done as a society around much less important topics) and “talk to the experts” even though the experts are taking the headlines and implementing “medicine” based in the headlines.

      Collapse
    2. R. James

      Thank you for expressing you position. I think your post highlights how David's call for pluralism is naive. When a society is divided so deeply that it cannot agree on fundamental morals and values to the degree that it can't agree on what constitutes child abuse, the society has very little left uniting it. Ultimately, Pluralism requires some uniting principles around which the vast majority of society can embrace despite their other differences on other issues. When parents can no longer be reasonably secure in the raising of their own children from state intervention, I think society has hit a breaking point.

      Collapse
  6. Duane

    Everybody commenting on this article should look up the story of the Randolph High School girls' volleyball team in Vermont.

    Collapse
    1. rc4797

      So? That's all you got? All players' rights should be accommodated. Next. And BTW, there was a time when whites refused to share facilities with black people too.

      Collapse
      1. Duane

        That's definitely not "all I've got," but you know something interesting? I think the most fitting solution at this point is to simply let the "trans movement" wash over all of our society and see how people like you react to it. I guarantee you that you will not like the world that is being built.

        Collapse
        1. rc4797

          Let the "trans movement" wash over all of our society? LOL What are you smoking?
          The percentage of the population that identifies as transgender is 0.6%. SIX TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT. My guess is you've never met or spoken to anyone who is transgender and probably still won't if all this "washing over" occurs. This is all moral panic nonsense intended to demonize a very small number of people for partisan political gain.

          Oh and since you're going anecdotal, Utah passed anti-trans legislation earlier this year regarding kids sports. The legislation, in its original form, was vetoed by the REPUBLICAN governor because it would have affected the FOUR transgender kids who were competing in sports throughout the entire state. But I'm glad you're on board for marginalizing and excluding FOUR children who just want to fit in best they can.

          Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Rjosephpaquette

    A child is born with the delusion that there is something wrong with their body.
    Medical science offers as a solution, body modification to make the body fit the delusion.
    That's a failure of medical science more than anything.
    If it were any other delusion, "I'm an angel" or "I'm Napoleon", we would not offer attachment of wings or shortening of the legs. Gender dysphoria has become a political issue and shame on medical science for not coming up with better treatments than body modification.

    Collapse
    1. Val Xavier

      I care a lot about this topic and I don’t know why. Something about it bothers me on a visceral level. I think part of it is my neurotic obsession with language. You know, “bring” and “take,” “I” and “me…” Language matters, especially in this dispute.

      Which brings me to “sex” and “gender.” Sex is a biological distinction, an empirical fact. Something that has unfortunately become an inconvenient truth for some. If one has the chromosomes, and the organs (regardless of what you did with them), then that’s what you are. This is a hard, dare I say it, *scientific* fact that also serves a VERY important biological function. It’s as close as we come to an actual indisputable, immutable biological truth.

      Sex = Male OR Female. And that’s that.

      On the other hand…

      Gender is a social construct. That’s not to say it’s less important. Biology is very important, but right now, sociology is even more important. Our social evolution far outpaces our biological evolution. Gender as a social construct is the state of being “masculine” or “feminine.” In that sense, “gender” fluidity makes much more sense. Which, I suspect, is why we’ve gravitated to the word “gender” when what we really mean is “sex.”

      This confusion of terms has become the ultimate first world problem. Only in an environment of prosperity at levels the world has never ever seen would a simple biological distinction and its importance get lost.

      I recognize people who are confused about their gender identity often become distressed, some to the point of suicidal thoughts. There is no doubt we need to actively manage that problem. Everyone deserves that kind of care and dignity.

      Now - I am going to address the “prevailing medical and psychiatric practice” comment because that hits a nerve with me, quite literally. Medical science in our age is extraordinary. We know more about the human body and its illnesses than ever. Some truly miraculous things have come from our application of medical science. But, I’ve learned something over the past few months - that what doctors do not know outweighs what they do know by an extreme margin. So saying “well the doctors say so” is *unpersuasive.* There was a time when doctors thought antiseptics were a fantasy, and President Garfield likely died because of it.

      My unease with our tendencies to gravitate to authority and force in lieu of actual persuasion continues to increase. It’s sad how many Americans have become so listless that force is all they know.

      Collapse
    2. rc4797

      You're delusional. Everything you've said is contrary to prevailing medical and psychiatric practice. And the identify as a cat, lobster, unicorn, etc. is complete garbage and nonsense. There is no equivalence to someone still identifying as human but being more comfortable in the other gender role.

      This is the type of ignorant crap that prevails in comment sections by transphobic bigots.

      Collapse
      1. R. James

        Your post is a great example of why French's call for pluralism in light of such deep societal divisions is naive.

        Collapse
  8. dhpheartbeat

    Thank you for being a moderate in a world filled with so much craziness. I am a moderate and am working hard to continue to having a gentle, quiet voice in a noisy world. Keep on keeping on

    Collapse
  9. Jim Hahn

    I’m not make light of this, but you know once you open a door to this…..once you go down the road of puberty blockers and other drugs for kids……

    Then you will get. What about kids who wish they were taller, stronger, or want to change some other perceived deficiency. Do we let them use steroids, growth hormones, and other drugs.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pg449works

      I work with a pediatric endocrinologist who prescribes puberty blockers. Not for gender dysphoria but for precocious puberty. Do you really want your daughter to start having periods and obsessing about boys at age six? Puberty blockers give children like that more normal childhoods.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        TimNYC88

        This is also why the last paragraph of David's piece — about mandating no such medical interventions for children below a certain age — gave me such pause. Because every single contentious medical intervention that someone doesn't like, everything that you think shouldn't happen or is misused, always has a use-case where it's needed, and imposing a bright-line rule in an area that requires an understanding of nuance and complexity — like medicine — will always result in human tragedy.

        But then, what does that matter to a lawmaker who has a point to make? Real human consequences are insignificant in the face of their political point. Congratulations on that, Mr. Lawmaker.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Narwhal

      https://www.cedars-sinai.org/health-library/diseases-and-conditions---pediatrics/g/growth-hormone-deficiency-in-children.html

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Coby Wheeler

    Honestly, this is what I really walked away with: “Everybody is stuck in this left-versus-right traditional dynamic,” he said. “But today, all over the world, it’s centrist versus extremist.” I have always listened to NPR and voted democrat for the most part, but to me it does seem that it's a fight between the majority of us reasonable folks that lean left or lean right against extremism on both sides. I am appalled by both sides. Paying for my Dispatch subscription is one small way to show my support. I would love to see more content from the Dispatch team on how we can all fight back against extremism (in addition to subscribing...)

    Collapse
Load More