I’m only a few years older than EW but I have been a Democrat since 1968. Almost thirty years longer than EW. I am a gender critical feminist who is fed up with the band wagon that too many seem to be willing to jump on. We are supposed to be the party of science not embracing policies without scientific merit that is harmful to women, children and young people Who often have mental health issues. European countries have realized the harm done on minors far outweighs the good and stepped away from the egregious extremism inherent in dangerous experimental medicine pushed by the activists. They do not talk to the female athletes, prisoners, detransitioners, etc. They take their cues and positions from the ACLU and Chase Strangio who do not let women speak who disagree. So much for their supposed first amendment support.
"a weird but common pathos" Like half the kids I knew growing up in the south during the 1980s said they had a Native American ancestor, which was usually a "Cherokee princess." Of course those didn't exist. It was a cope with being basic crackers.
Are you aware of Warren's dalliance with Aimee Challenor?
IIRC, during the 2019 presidential pre-primary politicking, Challenor had relocated to the states and tweeted that he was helping fundraise for Warren. I haven't got the receipts handy right now. I'll see if I can find them.
So depressing, but an essential read. I thought this observation right on target:
“The wonks I know are not going to risk anything for trans because it’s not their number one issue. Some get lucky and trans stuff doesn’t fall in their lap. Others compromise: they sign off on amicus briefs they think are dodgy, host a womxn’s lounge, help a colleague brainstorm evasive answers to questions about the sex binary, or reprimand paralegals for violating the office pronoun policy. They tell themselves they're doing too much good on other issues to throw it all away on something symbolic.
“The stakes are about to rise for many wonks.”
One thing I would say, though, on thinking about this, is that this problem, which you delineate so well, is not limited to wonks. (I do, though, think wonks deserve special examination, which you are phenomenally well-placed to do, so please understand that my thought here is intended only as complementary.) That is, virtually the entire Democratic party and its cohort pundits and analysts are infected with the "not my number one issue" thing. Harris, as an example, is not a wonk, but she and her campaign thought she could side-step this issue by just never talking about it.
As we all know, there is a widespread failure to recognize how deeply this is baked in to the Democratic brand. The only way out of this mess is through.
Just saw a comment on Twitter about this article that made me think of another point I wanted to make. The comment was "Hard to believe she was ever impartial enough to be a 'wonk' though." I disagree.
Wonks outsource their thinking on most other issues they're not experts in BECAUSE they're wonks. They think *everyone* who sounds confident must be an expert in a given field, because the wonks are experts in their field, and if the "expert" has the right credentials etc., they assume they can trust the "experts." I think Glenna's post today was gesturing towards that idea. Wonks think other people are wonks too, but that's poor theory of mind and just projection--one I have to be careful about too as I can get way up in my own ass with my wonkery!
Wonks tend to be super-earnest Girl Scout types, George Washington "I cannot tell a lie" types, and we get burned when we think everyone else operates this way too.
Hope this makes sense to anyone not wonking out on their fields and/or gender ideology.
I was an Elizabeth Warren fan. I even went to her Portland Oregon headquarters to volunteer.
Then the young staffer led the group of new recruits in a round of introductions, including everyone but me sharing their pronouns. When I skipped over the pronoun part for my introduction, the temperature in the room dropped 7 degrees. I never went back.
I guffawed at the "Masshole" line but what can I say, I live in L'il Rhody. Re: Mimi and her trans kid, I wonder if Jacob still identifies as a boy. Two images from last year (link below) don't suggest much masculinization. Interestingly, except for the biographical info and title of her book at the bottom, nowhere does this piece mention that Mimi has a "trans child" or refer to Jacob by name, though it does bring up her (past?) activism on behalf of her "LGBTQ+ children." The biographical blurb states that Mimi "remains an alumnus member" of the "Parents for Transgender Equality National Council at Human Rights Campaign" -- so presumably that's all in the past? Oldest daughter Eli came out as nonbinary five or so years ago (and had the short hair to prove it), but today is pretty girly seeming.
Omg I’ve never thought of “bisexuals” as trans for sexual orientation! But it’s true. Usually some ultra progressive person who’s bored of being straight and wants the credibility of being a mysterious sexual minority.
My fave example of this is a guy on Twitter several years ago who described himself as "queer" because he's attracted to women who don't fit the dominant cultural ideal--i.e., women from a variety of ethnic and racial backgrounds who are on the larger/plumper/more zaftig side. QED: queer.
When politicians jump into a cause de jour without doing due diligence, it makes it look as though they aren't serious, especially when they went whole hog and then have to walk it all back. This is the position Warren and many other Democrats now find themselves in.
But the public is partly to blame, as well. We often applaud pols leaping onto the latest bandwagon, then condemn them for going over a cliff with it after we have moved on. We need to be more forgiving when pols change their mind, instead of calling them wafflers or hypocrites.
Warren has promoted and implemented some great policies. The CFPB was sorely needed and has done a lot to protect the average citizen from rapacious banks and credit card companies. "Driven by a need to dominate" when used as an epithet against a female politician is pretty bog-standard sexism, in my view. A lot of people simply don't trust women who manifest their ambition openly.
I’m only a few years older than EW but I have been a Democrat since 1968. Almost thirty years longer than EW. I am a gender critical feminist who is fed up with the band wagon that too many seem to be willing to jump on. We are supposed to be the party of science not embracing policies without scientific merit that is harmful to women, children and young people Who often have mental health issues. European countries have realized the harm done on minors far outweighs the good and stepped away from the egregious extremism inherent in dangerous experimental medicine pushed by the activists. They do not talk to the female athletes, prisoners, detransitioners, etc. They take their cues and positions from the ACLU and Chase Strangio who do not let women speak who disagree. So much for their supposed first amendment support.
"We are supposed to be the party of science "
Exactly! What happened to "the reality-based community"?
A savage takedown of Warren's wonkery, but 100% justified. I too am a wonk; we need to know our place.
Kudos for the use of the term "Masshole"--a regionalism that is so evocative that it deserves to go mainstream.
Learned masshole on the highways of Northern RI. "Mom why did that guy just almost kill us!"
Amazingly, Massachusetts drivers don’t have a lot of accidents.
As a citizen of Massachusetts I dislike that moniker.
Agree. There is no need to use insults.
"a weird but common pathos" Like half the kids I knew growing up in the south during the 1980s said they had a Native American ancestor, which was usually a "Cherokee princess." Of course those didn't exist. It was a cope with being basic crackers.
Are you aware of Warren's dalliance with Aimee Challenor?
No, please share!
This is the Challenor story:
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/ashton-challenor-the-boy-who-disappeared
IIRC, during the 2019 presidential pre-primary politicking, Challenor had relocated to the states and tweeted that he was helping fundraise for Warren. I haven't got the receipts handy right now. I'll see if I can find them.
So depressing, but an essential read. I thought this observation right on target:
“The wonks I know are not going to risk anything for trans because it’s not their number one issue. Some get lucky and trans stuff doesn’t fall in their lap. Others compromise: they sign off on amicus briefs they think are dodgy, host a womxn’s lounge, help a colleague brainstorm evasive answers to questions about the sex binary, or reprimand paralegals for violating the office pronoun policy. They tell themselves they're doing too much good on other issues to throw it all away on something symbolic.
“The stakes are about to rise for many wonks.”
One thing I would say, though, on thinking about this, is that this problem, which you delineate so well, is not limited to wonks. (I do, though, think wonks deserve special examination, which you are phenomenally well-placed to do, so please understand that my thought here is intended only as complementary.) That is, virtually the entire Democratic party and its cohort pundits and analysts are infected with the "not my number one issue" thing. Harris, as an example, is not a wonk, but she and her campaign thought she could side-step this issue by just never talking about it.
As we all know, there is a widespread failure to recognize how deeply this is baked in to the Democratic brand. The only way out of this mess is through.
Just saw a comment on Twitter about this article that made me think of another point I wanted to make. The comment was "Hard to believe she was ever impartial enough to be a 'wonk' though." I disagree.
Wonks outsource their thinking on most other issues they're not experts in BECAUSE they're wonks. They think *everyone* who sounds confident must be an expert in a given field, because the wonks are experts in their field, and if the "expert" has the right credentials etc., they assume they can trust the "experts." I think Glenna's post today was gesturing towards that idea. Wonks think other people are wonks too, but that's poor theory of mind and just projection--one I have to be careful about too as I can get way up in my own ass with my wonkery!
Wonks tend to be super-earnest Girl Scout types, George Washington "I cannot tell a lie" types, and we get burned when we think everyone else operates this way too.
Hope this makes sense to anyone not wonking out on their fields and/or gender ideology.
I think lawyer wonks are more chauvinistic than this. We feel like our friends and colleagues within our niche are the most conscientious lawyers.
Among doctors this might be true though. I keep hearing they're trained to defer to each other based on specialty.
This makes TOTAL sense!
I was an Elizabeth Warren fan. I even went to her Portland Oregon headquarters to volunteer.
Then the young staffer led the group of new recruits in a round of introductions, including everyone but me sharing their pronouns. When I skipped over the pronoun part for my introduction, the temperature in the room dropped 7 degrees. I never went back.
I guffawed at the "Masshole" line but what can I say, I live in L'il Rhody. Re: Mimi and her trans kid, I wonder if Jacob still identifies as a boy. Two images from last year (link below) don't suggest much masculinization. Interestingly, except for the biographical info and title of her book at the bottom, nowhere does this piece mention that Mimi has a "trans child" or refer to Jacob by name, though it does bring up her (past?) activism on behalf of her "LGBTQ+ children." The biographical blurb states that Mimi "remains an alumnus member" of the "Parents for Transgender Equality National Council at Human Rights Campaign" -- so presumably that's all in the past? Oldest daughter Eli came out as nonbinary five or so years ago (and had the short hair to prove it), but today is pretty girly seeming.
https://www.facejewishhate.org/resource/a-foot-in-two-worlds-celebrating-pride-month-after-10-7/
Also this, from Mimi's Instagram in September 2023. https://www.instagram.com/p/Cw08ln0NeU7/?hl=en
Omg I’ve never thought of “bisexuals” as trans for sexual orientation! But it’s true. Usually some ultra progressive person who’s bored of being straight and wants the credibility of being a mysterious sexual minority.
Alternatively, spicy straights use the all-purpose label "Queer" to escape being called "cisheteronormative".
My fave example of this is a guy on Twitter several years ago who described himself as "queer" because he's attracted to women who don't fit the dominant cultural ideal--i.e., women from a variety of ethnic and racial backgrounds who are on the larger/plumper/more zaftig side. QED: queer.
When politicians jump into a cause de jour without doing due diligence, it makes it look as though they aren't serious, especially when they went whole hog and then have to walk it all back. This is the position Warren and many other Democrats now find themselves in.
But the public is partly to blame, as well. We often applaud pols leaping onto the latest bandwagon, then condemn them for going over a cliff with it after we have moved on. We need to be more forgiving when pols change their mind, instead of calling them wafflers or hypocrites.
It’s worse than I thought. She’s captured and it’s a long way to reverse ferret.
Yeah. I never trusted her. She talks a good game but is driven by a need to dominate. It clouds her judgement.
Warren has promoted and implemented some great policies. The CFPB was sorely needed and has done a lot to protect the average citizen from rapacious banks and credit card companies. "Driven by a need to dominate" when used as an epithet against a female politician is pretty bog-standard sexism, in my view. A lot of people simply don't trust women who manifest their ambition openly.