This article first appeared in New English Review.
The school shooting in Nashville has once again horrified the nation and revived the debate over gun laws. President Biden reacted by calling on Congress to pass his assault weapons ban. Republicans are calling for the presence of armed guards in our schools. Others are calling for stronger "red flag laws". But there is also a new ingredient to this particular atrocity in Nashville. The shooter was a 28-year-old woman who self-identified as a male-a transgender person. Instead of your typical disturbed white male, we have a disturbed white transgender-not as victim but as the perpetrator of a horrible crime, the cold-blooded murder of three children, ages 9, and three adults. How do the media and the left handle this narrative?
It should be stated at the outset that we are not expecting a wave of murders committed by transgenders. As far as I know, this is the first mass shooting by a transgender, so I don't want to stamp them all with the same label.
My question is whether this will cause us to put the brakes on "celebrating" people with sexual dysphoria and treat them as people with psychological problems per se. (I am not including gays, lesbians, and bi-sexuals in this discussion.)
In recent years, there has been a push in our schools and universities not just to demand compassion and respect for transgender people (to include letting them use whatever public restroom they wish and for biological males to compete against women athletes), but also to "celebrate" transgenderism itself. In my view, it is becoming a fad to self-identify with the opposite sex. Transgenders are becoming more open and more visible. Is that because there are many more of them than we imagined and they feel they can now be public about their sexuality and self-identification? Or is it because young, impressionable people are being persuaded that this is a great lifestyle choice, kind of like covering your body with tattoos? I don't know the answer to this question, but I am concerned. Needless to say, I am absolutely against promoting transgenderism to our children, let alone allowing them to undergo gender transformation whether it be surgical, chemical, or both. What I want is for young people who self-identify with the opposite sex to be treated with compassion and counseling. We all know the hormonal changes that teenagers go through. Could this also be playing a role?
But is it unreasonable in the wake of Nashville to at least discuss the possibilities that these people all need counseling-that there are psychological issues at play here? Again, this is not to suggest that all transgenders are walking time bombs just a trigger away from committing mass murder. The Nashville shooter clearly had psychological problems, and I assume she was committing suicide by cop knowing that she was not going to come out of this alive. We already know that the rate of suicides among transgenders is higher than the population at large.
The problem is that the left and academia, where so much of this lifestyle is fostered, don't want to admit that transgenders in general are in need of treatment-not to change their gender necessarily but to explore why they feel they are of the opposite sex. Obviously, if they are still children, they may well grow out of it, an argument against gender reassignment until they can make an adult decision.
So we are left with trying to close the book on a motive for the heinous crime in Nashville. At first glance, it appears the shooter was a former student at this Christian school (another aspect the left would prefer to downplay) and was angry at having to attend the school in the first place (many years earlier). Was she angry at how she was treated as a transgender? What else was involved? According to her parents' statements, she had many psychological issues. But as former congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) told Fox News, there is no motive for such an act that we can be comfortable with and say, "OK, now I understand". The only reason I am interested in the motive is, hopefully, to use the information to prevent future attacks (Call me naive.) The motive could also stimulate the debate over transgenderism itself. It is clear that many in the media and on the left want to downplay the transgender issue as well as the targeting of a Christian school. But if we bury the transgender identity of the shooter, we ignore what should be part of the whole discussion over how to treat and deal with transgenders in general. We have only been dealing with this issue seriously for a few years now. We are still in largely uncharted territory. The Nashville tragedy must be part of the discussion.
It comes down to this: Do we treat this condition as a psychological disorder, or do we celebrate, promote it, and encourage it? I vote for the former. Moreover, we should not let ideologies and politics determine how we go forward.
10 comments:
A few things:
While I respect your attempt to be reasonable about this and not use some of the talking points that I've heard from the far-right (like Marjorie Taylor Green's talk of "trans terrorism"), I think that there are a few things that you need to consider.
I often hear people speak of trans people having "psychological issues". The thing is, saying that somebody has psychological issues is to make a medical diagnosis. In some cases, this isn't too much of a reach. I think we'd both agree if we saw a guy who was convinced that he was Napoleon that he was suffering from psychological issues. But when it comes to the transgender issue? It's not like psychologists haven't been studying this. It's not like there's no data. And the fact is, the people who are actually qualified to make such a diagnosis do not put it in those terms.
And I have to wonder what "left-wing" media you're hearing from with your assertion that they're ignoring that this happened at a Christian school. That seems to be a pretty prominent talking point, and it's especially poignant as a retort to those who think that bringing God/prayer back in schools will prevent school shootings.
From the bit that I have gathered, this person was not accepted by their parents for their gender identity. I also don't think that I'm making a huge leap by assuming that there wasn't a lot of acceptance at a Christian school for him either.
I know that you didn't say this, but people often point out the high suicide rate among transgender people as some sort of an argument AGAINST supporting transgender affirmation. But the data clearly shows that the one thing that drastically reduces their suicide rate is when they have adults in their life who accept them and don't try and convince them that they have some "psychological problem" that needs to be fixed.
Considering how much transgender people get demonized, it's surprising that we haven't seen this kind of a thing before.
I think that your conclusions would make more sense if this person was in an environment where their identity was accepted and celebrated. But the exact opposite is the case.
Seems to me that the lesson here is that condemning trans people, mixed with our toxic gun culture, has created a deadly mix.
I mean, do you think that this would have happened had this person been treated with love and understanding instead of condemnation and trying to "fix" him?
You make excellent points First of all, while writing this I considered adding that I am not a psychologist, but decided not to say it since my background is on my site's front page. I tried to avoid sounding like I was making a medical diagnosis because I am basically asking questions when it comes to this issue.
I was not aware of Greene's statement about trans-terrorism. I would disagree with that since I believe it is the first such attack. At the same time, I don't agree with some protesters who reportedly chanted that there were 7 victims. There were 6 victims, period.
You raise the question of whether someone saying he is Napolean is different from a male saying he is a female and vis-versa. Perhaps, because in my mind, I am not convinced simply when John says he is now Mary unless he has actually had the surgery and the hormonal treatment. Science can change a man to a woman, so at some point, I am in agreement. At some point. To put it crudely, what is between your legs is what matters. I'm old-fashioned perhaps, but you can't just say you identify as the opposite sex and that entitles you to go into the other restrooms and compete against women in sports. I saw a recent interview with a young woman who was on Lea Thomas' swim team. She not only resented having to compete with a biological man but also having to shower and change clothes in the same room with Thomas who, according to her, still had male genitalia. Imagine if Lebron James decided he was really a woman and joined the WNBA.
As to the issue of acceptance, while I may or may not accept the change depending on what degree of gender reassignment has been done, I believe that transgenders and all gay people, lgbtq etc. should be accepted as human beings and not be subjected to torment or harassmnet. When I was young these folks all had to be in the closet or their lives would have been made miserable. Much has changed since then and will continue to change and that is good.
I still believe however that gender dysphoria is a psychological issue. When you are born as one gender and at some point feel you should be the other, something is wrong, I don't know if it's psychological, hormonal or both, but you need some sort of treatment to deal with it, figure it out, and decide which way to go. I think I mentioned that these are not decisions to be made when you are still a child. It should be an adult decision.
As to the CHristian school angle, until we read the manifesto left behind, we don't know exactly what role this may have played except that she previously attended this school as a child. Before we learned the identity of the shooter, I was wondering if this might have been an Islamic attack on a Christian school. While we have not yet seen this in the US, we have seen it many times in Europe, at least in the form of attacks against churches and synagogues. Had this been a mosque or synagagoe, it would be considered important news-as it should be, and to be condemned. Today we have learned that CBS News has put out some sort of memo to their reporters not to mention the word "transgender" when referring to the shooter. That means that to whatever extent the shooter's sexuality may-or may not- have played, it is not up for discussion.
I respect what you say about supporting transgenders, not demonizing them, and that this may prevent future attacks. At the same time, I don't feel that this is something to "celebrate". I don't think we should be pushing this down the throats of our school children until they are old enough to fully understand it. Transgenderism should not be a fad, not should it be considered a moral failing. It should be treated with compassion, but it is not nor should it be considered a normal condition. We need to find a balance here to support these people and reduce the suicide risk. Neither you nor I want to see these people kill themselves (or others).
There's a lot there, but I want to address the "what's in your pants is what matters".
I don't think that this is a very healthy way to think of this. I'm going to assume that you have no hesitation when it comes to identifying yourself as a man. Is that completely based on what's between your legs? Or is there something more to it? If you were to wake up tomorrow morning and magically have female genitalia, and everything else was the same, would you think of yourself as less of a man?
What seems to get lost in all of this is the difference between sex and gender. Your sex is what you are, biologically speaking. Your gender is how you identify. The idea of gender is a social construct, and I know that this sounds like some kind of hippie-dippie radical leftist talking point, but it's an easily provable fact. How so? There are societies in the past and present who do not have the simple binary of "man and woman". Just because the way we do it is pretty common, that doesn't make it any less of a construct.
And while I'm glad you agree that trans people should not be harassed, you must recognize that many of these laws that are being passed around the country are designed to do just that. Also, the hysteria over bathrooms and sports is part of a movement to marginalize them as well.
When it comes to the bathrooms, this was the ultimate "solution looking for a problem". Last time I used a public bathroom, nobody checked on my genitals before I went in there. If somebody uses a bathroom and doesn't bother anyone, then there shouldn't be a problem. The fact is that there are many (biological) men who pass as women and use the women's room without incident all the time because their main concern is to just relieve themselves and nobody is any the wiser.
And let's be honest about when it comes to protecting children, we have enough problems with "normal" church and Boy Scout leaders who are molesting children that this feels like a huge distraction from a much ore tangible issue. Ever watch that show "To Catch a Predator"? They always caught "normal" men, oftentimes those who were upstanding members of the community. Never seemed to snag a single drag queen or transgender person.
As for sports, this is also a tempest in a teapot. We're not having a rash of biological men dominating in women's sports. If I had a daughter who played sports, chances are much higher that she's going to have to deal with somebody who's of the same sex and gender who has natural biological advantages (taller, greater lung capacity, etc.)
I mean, look at Michael Phelps. His body produces half the lactic acid as most people. Lactic acid is what causes fatigue. Should he be barred from sports? Seems unfair that he's allowed to compete when he has a biological advantage. (And when it comes to male/female sports, we're incorrectly assuming that any given man has a biological advantage over any given woman.)
The bottom line is that the issue of gender and sex isn't as simple as we were raised to believe that it was. Right now, trans people are gaining more acceptance, but an unfortunate side effect is that some people are pushing back who don't have their best interests at heart and then they cloud the issue for folks who don't have an axe to grind against trans people, and they do so by using hot-button issues like "protetcing children", albeit rather dishonestly.
"I don't think that this is a very healthy way to think of this. I'm going to assume that you have no hesitation when it comes to identifying yourself as a man. Is that completely based on what's between your legs? Or is there something more to it? If you were to wake up tomorrow morning and magically have female genitalia, and everything else was the same, would you think of yourself as less of a man?"
That's a big hypothetical, but I stick with my position. If a man has the surgery, I will accept the results. But to use my previous example, I do not consider Lea Thomas to be a female.
"What seems to get lost in all of this is the difference between sex and gender. Your sex is what you are, biologically speaking. Your gender is how you identify. The idea of gender is a social construct, and I know that this sounds like some kind of hippie-dippie radical leftist talking point, but it's an easily provable fact. How so? There are societies in the past and present who do not have the simple binary of "man and woman". Just because the way we do it is pretty common, that doesn't make it any less of a construct."
You are correct. It does sound like some kind of hippie-dippie radical leftist talking point. No doubt you picked up that term in college. I just posted a debate in the Dutch Parliament on the lgbtq issue. As Geert Wilders said, he (nor I) have anything against gay or trans people. We do think that we should not be teaching small kids about it school before they even learn to read and write.
"And while I'm glad you agree that trans people should not be harassed, you must recognize that many of these laws that are being passed around the country are designed to do just that. Also, the hysteria over bathrooms and sports is part of a movement to marginalize them as well."
I disagree. These laws are designed to protect the integrity of women sports and to keep biological males out of women's restrooms. The women don't want them there. Any guy can put on a wig, say he is female, wear women's clothes, and that entitles them to use a woman's rest room? No. I agree that most of these incidents pass without any problems, but the first time a woman is assaulted by a man who claims to be a woman in a woman's rest room, watch the lawsuits fly against whoever put that policy in place for that restroom.
"And let's be honest about when it comes to protecting children, we have enough problems with "normal" church and Boy Scout leaders who are molesting children that this feels like a huge distraction from a much ore tangible issue. Ever watch that show "To Catch a Predator"? They always caught "normal" men, oftentimes those who were upstanding members of the community. Never seemed to snag a single drag queen or transgender person."
I speak out about sexual abuse of children by religious leaders, boy scout leaders or anyone else. As far as "To catch a predator" is concerned, did it ever occur to you that maybe they have snared someone in that category, but the program decided not to broadcast it. I don't know if that is the case, but we know our media well enough to know that they shy away from certain stories. Just recently, I sent a tip to the local Orange Country Register about a mosque in Anaheim, whose imam was talking about annihilating Jews. I sent them video and all, a serious allegation. The newspaper would not even talk to me.
Nor is it a tempest in a teapot. Lea Thomas is a pretty big deal in my book. The whole idea of women's sports and Title 9 is being put at risk here. As for Michael Phelps, he is a male and as long as that lactic acid thing is natural and not caused by some drug, that's fine. It's like saying Wilt Chamberlain should have been banned because he was too tall. The only thing I would have banned him from was the WNBA.
"You are correct. It does sound like some kind of hippie-dippie radical leftist talking point. No doubt you picked up that term in college."
I'm not quite sure how to respond to this, as it doesn't seem like you're even open to understanding my point. You've just given a knee-jerk response with the premise that anything coming from college is bad. For the record, I didn't learn it in college. This isn't even new information, and there is a lot of research. Like I said, we know of societies that don't have the binary male/female dynamic when it comes to identifying gender. I suppose that I would change my mind if I was shown that they didn't exist.
"the first time a woman is assaulted by a man who claims to be a woman in a woman's rest room, watch the lawsuits fly against whoever put that policy in place for that restroom."
I'm legitimately trying to understand your position here. Who is creating a "policy" here? Would a "anyone can use this restroom" policy suddenly change the laws on assault? And with these restroom laws, how are they even being enforced in the first place? Do you want to show your privates every time before entering a public restroom?
I'll give you the point on "To Catch a Predator". While I don't believe that drag queens are as likely to pose a threat as a Catholic priest, that was a poor argument on my part.
I had to look up Lea Thomas, and I'm failing to see the big deal. She seems to be pretty successful, but it's not like she's dominating the sport. Whatever advantages she has as a biological man are being taken away by the hormones she's taking (which reduce muscle tone, for one thing).
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/lia-thomas-trans-swimmer-ron-desantis-b2091218.html
I do find the "women don't want it" talking point to be interesting. All women? Really? Where are you getting this? I'm sure that SOME women don't want it. Maybe most? I don't know one way or the other.
But it's especially rich coming from a "conservative" blog. Are we really holding up what women want as the standard for what we should do? So, can I wait for your upcoming post where you support a woman's access to abortion? Because in this case, there is some actual data that points to the fact that MOST women want that (not to mention most Americans in general).
"and there is a lot of research...."? There is a lot of research on all kinds of wild ideas. There is a lot of research about flying saucers, but we still have yet to actually capture one, have we?
As to a woman being assaulted in a restroom argument, it doesn't take a lot of imagination if say a school opens restrooms to all, and a girl is assaulted by a transgender, there will be a lawsuit against the school. And it would win. I think it is a very clear point.
Lea Thomas went from being a marginal swimmer as a man to a prominent swimmer among women. Are you dismissing all the women swimmers who are complaining about having to compete and shower with HIM? I say him because according to the reports I have read including a live interview with a female swimmer who had to shower in the same room as Thomas, he still has his male genitalia. In addition, males still have an advantage in terms of bone structure that they don't lose by taking hormones. Thomas looks like pretty big person. If you are saying that men who take hormones to become women lose all physical advantages, T say you are in error.
Well, I guess there are some women out there who don't mind changing in the same locker room with a biological man. Many feminists on the left have lost their feminist sentiments in favor of supporting the trans agenda. Just as many feminists are silent about Islamic mysoginy. Many gay activists are silent about how gays are treated in Islamic societies. The argument that we don't know exactly how many women don't want to share bathrooms and shower rooms with biological males should not change our original reasoning way back in time to have separate facilities for men and women.
No, I don't favor abortion, but I just don't know how we can make it illegal again with a system that would work. There is no perfect solution here.
"There is a lot of research about flying saucers, but we still have yet to actually capture one, have we?"
Come on, Fouse. Just when I think that you're able to be somewhat reasonable, you come up with this? I suppose that I could explain all of the differences between the two subjects and what constitutes actual "research", but I suppose that it would be just as effective as bashing my skull into a concrete wall.
"if say a school opens restrooms to all, and a girl is assaulted by a transgender, there will be a lawsuit against the school."
You seem to be under the impression that this all started with schools opening restrooms to everyone. That's not what happened. It started with laws being passed to PREVENT people from using certain restrooms. So, the very premise in which you are basing your argument is flawed.
I don't understand your point about bone structure and Lea Thomas. How is being bigger and having bigger bones an advantage when it comes to swimming? I'm fairly big. I bet a lot of small women could easily best me in a swim contest, and they don't even have to be athletes.
And I'm sorry, but all of this "sharing bathrooms with somebody who has male genitalia" strikes me as a bunch of backward, Victorian-era pearl-clutching. Oh no! You might see a penis! That's bad because...well, nobody really explains why, it's just bad.
I've been in plenty of locker rooms with naked dudes, and I manage to not see their genitals. One reason is because they have the good sense to not draw attention to it. The other is that I'm not looking and respect their privacy. So long as Lea and her teammates act accordingly, there's no reason why it should be a problem. And no, I don't think that the feelings of a few women who are terrified of human anatomy should play a major factor.
And my point about abortion and what women want is that you don't get to use that as an argument only when it suits your purpose. I'm not using it as an argument in favor of trans rights or in favor of abortion rights. 100% of women could be for or against me on either case, and I'd still come to the same conclusions.
"if say a school opens restrooms to all, and a girl is assaulted by a transgender, there will be a lawsuit against the school."
"You seem to be under the impression that this all started with schools opening restrooms to everyone. That's not what happened. It started with laws being passed to PREVENT people from using certain restrooms. So, the very premise in which you are basing your argument is flawed."
You mean it started with those "antiquated" laws designed to protect the privacy of opposite sexes in restrooms? Is that your argument? Really?
"And I'm sorry, but all of this "sharing bathrooms with somebody who has male genitalia" strikes me as a bunch of backward, Victorian-era pearl-clutching. Oh no! You might see a penis! That's bad because...well, nobody really explains why, it's just bad."
I guess I answered my own question. So separate restrooms is Victorian!
"I don't understand your point about bone structure and Lea Thomas. How is being bigger and having bigger bones an advantage when it comes to swimming? I'm fairly big. I bet a lot of small women could easily best me in a swim contest, and they don't even have to be athletes."
At the lower levels (amateur weekend players), there are plenty of women who can beat men in swimming as well as tennis or golf. But at the professional or collegiate level, not so. When I was living in ITaly and playing tennis on the weekends, I recall a retired female tennis pro who was a color announcer for tournaments making the point that the number one female player in the world could not beat the number 100 ranked male player in the world.
"I've been in plenty of locker rooms with naked dudes, and I manage to not see their genitals. One reason is because they have the good sense to not draw attention to it. The other is that I'm not looking and respect their privacy. So long as Lea and her teammates act accordingly, there's no reason why it should be a problem. And no, I don't think that the feelings of a few women who are terrified of human anatomy should play a major factor."
Wow. I'm supposed to debate that?
"You mean it started with those "antiquated" laws designed to protect the privacy of opposite sexes in restrooms? Is that your argument? Really?"
There were laws about who goes in what restroom? Then why are some states passing laws banning transgender people from using the bathroom of their preference? If it's already law, then why pass a new one? From what I can tell, the anti-discrimination laws in other states are a reaction to the anti-trans laws.
And I have to wonder what restrooms you're using. Even if we have laws banning people of one gender from entering the opposite restroom, how is this going to be enforced? How would this imaginary lawsuit scenario of yours be any different with the type of law you want unless we have people guarding the restrooms and check what's in everybody's pants before entering? Is that what you're advocating? (I don't think so, but I also don't think that you're thinking this trough to it's logical conclusions - just the conclusion that you've already made.)
Regarding your anecdote about the tennis player. Wow. One person said a thing about a sport that's different than the one we're talking about. Very relevant. That quote also doesn't address how hormone treatments drastically reduce many of these advantages. (A good metaphor that I heard is to imagine putting the engine of a small car into a huge SUV. You're not going to get the same performance.)
Furthermore, I've never gone into a female locker/shower room. According to my female friends, who should know, there are plenty of walls and areas where one can have some privacy and getting completely nude in front of others isn't the norm.
But I will backtrack after talking with some female friends on this issue a bit. I think that ideally, seeing male genatalia shouldn't be a big deal. However, this isn't an ideal world, and for some women it would be very troubling - whether for good reasons or not.
In this case, I still fully support trans women (provided that they are at least on hormone treatment) in men's sports, but I don't think that it would be too hard to provide some accommodation. I don't think that they should be forced to shower with men either, as that's likely to put them in danger.
It's hard to imagine what it would be like if I was a trans athlete. But just as I would expect people to be sensitive to me, I would hope that I could be sensitive to my teammates and maybe use the showers after they're all out or come to some accommodation that everyone can live with. (I read about what teammate of Thomas who isn't advocating for her to be off the team - just to have a separate room.)
I am becoming convinced that you are a Russian bot sent by Putin to keep me distracted from my daily rounds. Let's just agree to disagree rather than sink into minutia.
Post a Comment