I don't think classically liberal values are "more about procedure." For instance, I believe denying someone the ability to speak their mind truthfully is a moral harm, regardless of how hateful that mind. Free speech is not merely a means to an end, it's a good unto itself.
You show how easy it is to "turn Rufo's argument around" and I don't disagree, but I think it simply highlights the bind that all of us are in, choosing lesser evils. That gives me sympathy for both Rufo and you. The "lesser evil" is ultimately an intimately personal decision, and can swing one way or the other based on very slight nuances in how one weighs one's values. We need less debate where both sides consider the lesser evil to be obvious; it's not.
Finally, I would be interested in hearing you write more extensively about the extremism of Trump's anti-woke executive orders. I'm in a position where I might consider them extreme, except in contrast to where Biden staked the goalposts during his term.
I can see some of the harms being attempted (e.g. cancelled drag shows, threats to academic freedom) but those look like they'll be stopped by judges, so I'm mostly concerned about things within the lines drawn by the judiciary. I don't think Trump outright denies gender dysphoria--the military ban, for instance, kind of hinges on trans being a mental illness that requires treatment--but he's throwing down a lot of gauntlets where the QT+ community is going to have to be more clear about the lines between actual gender dysphoria, intersex, and simply playing around with gender-coded dress and mannerisms. I don't see any move from Trump's extended team to overturn Bostock, which definitely protects the latter regardless of whether or not actual gender dysphoria is in play.
And overall, I guess I view "there are two sexes, you can't discriminate or segregate based on them without a really good reason, including (Bostock) discriminating based on gender-coded dress and mannerisms" as a better place from which society can negotiate the few remaining grey zones than "gender is self-id, you can't discriminate or segregate based on biological sex ever, only gender self-id," which is where Biden left us. But I admit, you're better situated to see any costs I might be missing. You need to speak to the part of the center that doesn't see Trump's actions being as harmful to trans as you think they are.
(Hopefully helpful disclosure: gay guy here, no antipathy to trans nor particularly conservative sex/gender values, but fairly comfortable with the idea that haters got rights too.)
Don't get me wrong. Classical liberal values are of course a moral good unto itself, it's what I've been arguing from the 'moral libertarian' perspective for years. However, I think we need something more substantial to further support our position, and potentially broaden the appeal of our position, in this two-sided battle against both the illiberal left and the illiberal right.
As for Trump's anti-woke executive orders and resulting policy changes in various agencies, they are coming at such a speed that I can't say for sure at what point they will stop. Even if they stop right now, objectively harm has been done. For example, various programs have been cut, and websites have been deliberately modified to exclude legitimate information. What I'm perhaps most concerned about at this point is the intrusion into academic research, and the application of Trump's anti-trans executive order in this area might have adverse impacts on academic freedom. I mean, questionnaires containing questions related to that order have been sent to universities, even as far as Australia! The dogmatic approach of not recognizing trans identities could have a chilling effect on needed research about the health of trans people throughout the Western world, for example. While I am on board with recognizing biological sex, I think we can also recognize gender identity. There is no reason why we can't recognize both.
Furthermore, I am worried that all this might, at least to a certain level, be a manifestation of genuine anti-trans animus. The language used in Trump's order banning trans people from the military has a clearly anti-trans tone (as opposed to his 1st term ban which was justified solely on military readiness). The official adoption of an anti-trans worldview is of particular worry, because it could legitimize unfair treatment towards trans people.
Thanks for the perspective. Those are valid concerns.
I'm not convinced _government_ recognition of gender identity would best serve anyone. I've seen it compared to religion's idea of a soul, and I think many of the reasons the government should stay out of religion probably apply here, such that the government should neither establish nor forbid the concept. I'm open to the idea that the government can recognize gender identity without infringing on anyone's core freedoms, especially to the extent that a hands-off approach would threaten the physical health and safety of trans people. I just have a tough time pinning down the details of what that should look like, and my opinion hinges on the details. I'm particularly concerned about any policy that would codify gender stereotypes, and I'm unable to conceive of any alternative to self-id that doesn't do that.
There's no doubt that genuine anti-trans (and anti-gay) sentiment is manifesting all over the place right now, but it's not like these opinions weren't there before Trump, they were just silenced by woke. But just because a policy is supported by bigots doesn't mean it's necessarily bad policy; it might just mean it's a policy that allows people to live together in peace despite finding each other condemnable.
Anyway, I hope I haven't said too much here. I really want my appreciation of your perspective to be the takeaway. Thank you for being you!
A few thoughts...
I don't think classically liberal values are "more about procedure." For instance, I believe denying someone the ability to speak their mind truthfully is a moral harm, regardless of how hateful that mind. Free speech is not merely a means to an end, it's a good unto itself.
You show how easy it is to "turn Rufo's argument around" and I don't disagree, but I think it simply highlights the bind that all of us are in, choosing lesser evils. That gives me sympathy for both Rufo and you. The "lesser evil" is ultimately an intimately personal decision, and can swing one way or the other based on very slight nuances in how one weighs one's values. We need less debate where both sides consider the lesser evil to be obvious; it's not.
Finally, I would be interested in hearing you write more extensively about the extremism of Trump's anti-woke executive orders. I'm in a position where I might consider them extreme, except in contrast to where Biden staked the goalposts during his term.
I can see some of the harms being attempted (e.g. cancelled drag shows, threats to academic freedom) but those look like they'll be stopped by judges, so I'm mostly concerned about things within the lines drawn by the judiciary. I don't think Trump outright denies gender dysphoria--the military ban, for instance, kind of hinges on trans being a mental illness that requires treatment--but he's throwing down a lot of gauntlets where the QT+ community is going to have to be more clear about the lines between actual gender dysphoria, intersex, and simply playing around with gender-coded dress and mannerisms. I don't see any move from Trump's extended team to overturn Bostock, which definitely protects the latter regardless of whether or not actual gender dysphoria is in play.
And overall, I guess I view "there are two sexes, you can't discriminate or segregate based on them without a really good reason, including (Bostock) discriminating based on gender-coded dress and mannerisms" as a better place from which society can negotiate the few remaining grey zones than "gender is self-id, you can't discriminate or segregate based on biological sex ever, only gender self-id," which is where Biden left us. But I admit, you're better situated to see any costs I might be missing. You need to speak to the part of the center that doesn't see Trump's actions being as harmful to trans as you think they are.
(Hopefully helpful disclosure: gay guy here, no antipathy to trans nor particularly conservative sex/gender values, but fairly comfortable with the idea that haters got rights too.)
Don't get me wrong. Classical liberal values are of course a moral good unto itself, it's what I've been arguing from the 'moral libertarian' perspective for years. However, I think we need something more substantial to further support our position, and potentially broaden the appeal of our position, in this two-sided battle against both the illiberal left and the illiberal right.
As for Trump's anti-woke executive orders and resulting policy changes in various agencies, they are coming at such a speed that I can't say for sure at what point they will stop. Even if they stop right now, objectively harm has been done. For example, various programs have been cut, and websites have been deliberately modified to exclude legitimate information. What I'm perhaps most concerned about at this point is the intrusion into academic research, and the application of Trump's anti-trans executive order in this area might have adverse impacts on academic freedom. I mean, questionnaires containing questions related to that order have been sent to universities, even as far as Australia! The dogmatic approach of not recognizing trans identities could have a chilling effect on needed research about the health of trans people throughout the Western world, for example. While I am on board with recognizing biological sex, I think we can also recognize gender identity. There is no reason why we can't recognize both.
Furthermore, I am worried that all this might, at least to a certain level, be a manifestation of genuine anti-trans animus. The language used in Trump's order banning trans people from the military has a clearly anti-trans tone (as opposed to his 1st term ban which was justified solely on military readiness). The official adoption of an anti-trans worldview is of particular worry, because it could legitimize unfair treatment towards trans people.
Thanks for the perspective. Those are valid concerns.
I'm not convinced _government_ recognition of gender identity would best serve anyone. I've seen it compared to religion's idea of a soul, and I think many of the reasons the government should stay out of religion probably apply here, such that the government should neither establish nor forbid the concept. I'm open to the idea that the government can recognize gender identity without infringing on anyone's core freedoms, especially to the extent that a hands-off approach would threaten the physical health and safety of trans people. I just have a tough time pinning down the details of what that should look like, and my opinion hinges on the details. I'm particularly concerned about any policy that would codify gender stereotypes, and I'm unable to conceive of any alternative to self-id that doesn't do that.
There's no doubt that genuine anti-trans (and anti-gay) sentiment is manifesting all over the place right now, but it's not like these opinions weren't there before Trump, they were just silenced by woke. But just because a policy is supported by bigots doesn't mean it's necessarily bad policy; it might just mean it's a policy that allows people to live together in peace despite finding each other condemnable.
Anyway, I hope I haven't said too much here. I really want my appreciation of your perspective to be the takeaway. Thank you for being you!
TaraElla you are such a bastion of sanity. Love you!
Thanks for your appreciation.