The Liberal Answer to Elon Musk

[Log]

California is a messy place, and there are plenty of things I see living here that I’d like to see changed. But, I’m always baffled by people who describe its problems as a crisis or suggest it needs massive changes because it is failing. It has had the biggest economy in the US since the beginning of the 1970’s. Texas’s economy is about 2/3 the size of California’s (2.7 trillion to 4.1 trillion). In 1990 Texas was, about 6/10ths (1 trillion to 1.7 trillion). So both states have grown at about the same rate for the last 30 years.

And California is now losing population for the first time in decades, while Texas is still growing in population. If all the solid blue states are shrinking or stagnating while red states are growing, we will have an increasingly uphill battle in the electoral college. So we need to grow our coalition, and in order to do that we need to convince more voters, on the margin, that Democrats can govern well.

California needs to do better for the sake of the country. As Ezra says (paraphrasing), "Democrats should be able to say, 'elect us and we will govern the way we govern California.' Instead, Republicans are able to say, 'elect them and they will govern the way they govern California.'"

California is ground zero of the national housing shortage. We have worse mass homelessness than any other state. Basically every other region with a housing shortage got there by importing California-style anti-growth policies. And none of them choked off housing supply quite as effectively as we did. Oregon has very similar politics to California, but they still build more housing per capita than we do. California has been uniquely effective at pricing people out, whether they leave the state, or stick around and pitch a tent on the sidewalk. And the ultimate finding of every economist is that this is the consequence of our policy choices. It can't be hand-waved a way with, "well, California's a nice place to live." It is, so we should build more housing and be a place of abundance. We chose not to, and so people suffer needlessly.

[desertadapted]

The comments in this thread panning Ezra Klein’s observations make me despair of my party. Liberals have allowed themselves to become advocates for all of the kludge that has accumulated both in blue states and at the federal level that gets in the way of solving real problems of real people.  Something Klein refers to as “everything bagel liberalism.”  The way this manifests itself most is in housing, housing, housing.  Blue states  are losing population and political power by driving people away with sky high housing prices.  Cities are liberal-making machines.  Yet we are committing a form of slow political suicide with our love of kludge in the guise of respecting local control and the myriad great ideas/conditions we attach to every project.  We abhor Robert Moses and have made him impossible in the modern era, but in so doing we’ve made it impossible to build – big or small. Texas runs circles around California in terms of housing starts and housing affordability.  It’s not even close.  Sure, Texas has a more favorable geography, but the core issue is policy. 

Newsom will no doubt run for president pointing to all the laws that California passed to speed housing starts in California, to little discernable effect.  This is part of the liberal disease of focusing on what laws were passed, or what was spent, not on results.  If liberals cannot solve the problem of housing in blue states, how can we make a case for leadership?  The first instinct of the kludge is to subsidize a scarce good (e.g., subsidized low-income housing) instead of reducing the scarcity itself.  We need to be able to focus on a need that matters to real people, and solve the problem.  Not add 1,000 conditions that make the solution all the harder.  It’s NOT the thought the counts.  But the outcome. 

Props to Log for pushing this issue, and for encouraging people to read “Abundance.”

Wintergreen, the focus on GDP growth is part of why we got our butts kicked in the last election.  Affordability matters.  GDP is an aggregate that means absolutely nothing to someone struggling with rent, or who cannot afford a home.  We need to think not just about the AI genius clearing $500K, but the dude who cleans the bathrooms at the AI facility, and GDP obscures that.  And even focusing on GDP, both Florida and Texas have outpaced California and New York in GDP growth post-pandemic. 

[ChpBstrd]

California needs to do better for the sake of the country. As Ezra says (paraphrasing), "Democrats should be able to say, 'elect us and we will govern the way we govern California.' Instead, Republicans are able to say, 'elect them and they will govern the way they govern California.'"

This is the issue in a nutshell. Blue states tend to be difficult places to raise a family or attain home ownership. The costs are just too high, so the perceived optimum lifestyle is to rent, be single, and hope to someday make enough money to retire to a red state like FL, TX, or ID rather than ending up amongst the hoards of homeless people. That does not appeal to most Americans.

So yes, undecided voters with kids and a home ownership agenda look at coastal state policies and think "wow, their policies are a threat to my American dream." At that point you're one step away from seeing Fox News alarmism as making sense.

If liberals cannot solve the problem of housing in blue states, how can we make a case for leadership?  The first instinct of the kludge is to subsidize a scarce good (e.g., subsidized low-income housing) instead of reducing the scarcity itself. 

This is the problem with a class-warfare ideology. Eliminating SFH zoning or streamlining the permitting process would only benefit the rich developers, they say. So let's instead benefit existing middle-class homeowners by creating scarcity conditions to run up their home prices. Yes, we may be borrowing prosperity from the future and yes our selfishness may be thinly veiled, but at least we're socking it to the rich.

A new liberalism is needed that drops both the class struggle paradigm of Marx and the selfish hyper-individualism of Ayn Rand. A technocratic vision of how problems could be tangibly solved or mitigated is necessary. But this direction would involve collective cooperation, a willingness to attack popular culture, and perhaps a little sacrifice when it comes to taxes, property values, and tax allocation. So far that price has been too high to pay.

...the focus on GDP growth is part of why we got our butts kicked in the last election.  Affordability matters.  GDP is an aggregate that means absolutely nothing to someone struggling with rent, or who cannot afford a home.  We need to think not just about the AI genius clearing $500K, but the dude who cleans the bathrooms at the AI facility, and GDP obscures that.  And even focusing on GDP, both Florida and Texas have outpaced California and New York in GDP growth post-pandemic. 

There certainly is a paradox when one says "inequality is a problem!" and then proceeds to create conditions of vast inequality wherever one is put into office. New York, DC, Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, and Illinois are all in the top-ten states and territories as grouped by the Gini Coefficient.

It's also not a good look to claim to be an advocate for the poor when there's a beggar at every street corner in one's state, or when the poor are fleeing your state.

So far, I'm seeing no signs of a realization among Democrats that they shouldn't have run on the basis of GDP, unemployment, or stock market growth, and have instead focused on the metrics they claim to care about, like the decline of the American middle class. Instead, I'm hearing more "voters are stupid" denialism.

Unless there's a major revolt soon, the Dems are dead as a national party.

[reeshau]

Newsom will no doubt run for president pointing to all the laws that California passed to speed housing starts in California, to little discernable effect.  This is part of the liberal disease of focusing on what laws were passed, or what was spent, not on results.  If liberals cannot solve the problem of housing in blue states, how can we make a case for leadership?  The first instinct of the kludge is to subsidize a scarce good (e.g., subsidized low-income housing) instead of reducing the scarcity itself.  We need to be able to focus on a need that matters to real people, and solve the problem.  Not add 1,000 conditions that make the solution all the harder.  It’s NOT the thought the counts.  But the outcome. 

I saw this tendency also while living in Ireland.  I think once you start tinkering with markets through legislation, the next thought is: "how can I next tinker with it?"  The end result was a convoluted system requiring a percentage of affordable housing (there, Council Housing, literally public housing) but no funding for it.  So, under conditions of scarcity, the market-priced units all get more expensive to cover that cost.

Also, banks there are given a certain amount of leeway to exceed norms of salary multiples for mortgages.   So, if you are lucky, you are "blessed" with a mortgage that strains your affordability, but which can be enough to snag a house.

I think of this problem like I think of our aging population.  Yes, we have it bad, but it's worse elsewhere.  We aren't the first lemming to jump off the cliff.  So, maybe if we don't come up with the solution, we can see if someone closer to the cliff does.  Or, in the worst case, point to the lemming who did leap and try to wake up before it happens to us, too.

[wenchsenior]

The comments in this thread panning Ezra Klein’s observations make me despair of my party. Liberals have allowed themselves to become advocates for all of the kludge that has accumulated both in blue states and at the federal level that gets in the way of solving real problems of real people.  Something Klein refers to as “everything bagel liberalism.”  The way this manifests itself most is in housing, housing, housing.  Blue states  are losing population and political power by driving people away with sky high housing prices.  Cities are liberal-making machines.  Yet we are committing a form of slow political suicide with our love of kludge in the guise of respecting local control and the myriad great ideas/conditions we attach to every project.  We abhor Robert Moses and have made him impossible in the modern era, but in so doing we’ve made it impossible to build – big or small. Texas runs circles around California in terms of housing starts and housing affordability.  It’s not even close.  Sure, Texas has a more favorable geography, but the core issue is policy. 

Newsom will no doubt run for president pointing to all the laws that California passed to speed housing starts in California, to little discernable effect.  This is part of the liberal disease of focusing on what laws were passed, or what was spent, not on results.  If liberals cannot solve the problem of housing in blue states, how can we make a case for leadership?  The first instinct of the kludge is to subsidize a scarce good (e.g., subsidized low-income housing) instead of reducing the scarcity itself.  We need to be able to focus on a need that matters to real people, and solve the problem.  Not add 1,000 conditions that make the solution all the harder.  It’s NOT the thought the counts.  But the outcome. 

Props to Log for pushing this issue, and for encouraging people to read “Abundance.”

Wintergreen, the focus on GDP growth is part of why we got our butts kicked in the last election.  Affordability matters.  GDP is an aggregate that means absolutely nothing to someone struggling with rent, or who cannot afford a home.  We need to think not just about the AI genius clearing $500K, but the dude who cleans the bathrooms at the AI facility, and GDP obscures that.  And even focusing on GDP, both Florida and Texas have outpaced California and New York in GDP growth post-pandemic.

Absolutely agree, esp with the bolded part. I used to live in a very blue/progressive mid-size city in a reddish swing state, and it took FUCKING FOREVER for any civic or city improvement project to get approved or actually completed. Often on the order of decades. The economy there has remained super vibrant since the 50s, but recently people are starting to get more and more priced out of living there. I would consider moving back for retirement but it's pricing me out too.

I've lived for a long time in a similar sized city in Texas, and while Texas absolutely sucks beyond description in so many ways, the housing does remain affordable here, and thus here we are despite hating it and wishing we lived somewhere else.

As I noted in a different thread, until Dems come up with consistent messaging around practical policies to increase housing and bring down costs, that is going to be one of the main things that hamstrings them in elections. I say this as someone who absolutely despises urban sprawl and worries endlessly about chewing up undeveloped land for housing. It doesn't matter that I wish we had less people and less housing development in a perfect world. We have a fuck ton of people, and not enough housing in otherwise economically viable areas.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

The first graph in this article traces births, deaths, net immigration (from abroad), net migration (within the U.S.), and the overall net effect on population.

"A significant driver of the state’s population loss has been residents moving to other states—most often Texas, Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona. Housing costs loom large in this dynamic. In a recent PPIC survey, about a third (34%) of Californians say they are considering moving out of the state due to housing costs."
https://www.ppic.org/publication/whats-behind-californias-recent-population-decline-and-why-it-matters/

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Noah Smith, the reviewer, points towards what I think may be the source of the misunderstanding:

...

This is only one way that Klein and Thompson would have us focus on outputs instead of on inputs. Progressives love to focus on the number of dollars the government spends on high speed rail or green energy; Klein and Thompson would have us focus instead on how much actually gets built as a result of that spending. Progressives obsess over specifying which procedures government and the private sector have to follow whenever they build something; Klein and Thompson would rather we focus on the outcomes instead.

Is there a different video by Ezra Klein focusing more on the cost per result?

Klein focuses on the failure of high-speed rail in California.  Inefficient spending makes an appearance, but only barely.  And he muddies the water by praising China's success, ignoring how China can simply arrest anyone who opposes government plans.  He doesn't explain why Republican states have the same problem as California.

Up above, I also highlighted the key distinction between countries with and without high-speed rail: population density.  How did he not consider that?  Japan, France, Germany and Italy all have higher population density than the U.S. (by far).  Countries like Canada and Australia, not mentioned in the video, also don't have high-speed rail beyond the planning stages - and have low population density.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density

HSR is just one example of blue state governance issues though. Listen to the first thing Ezra talks about in the video: California and New York are pricing out middle class people by failing to build housing. Texas and Florida and Arizona, meanwhile, build houses.

On high speed rail:

Saying, "Republican states also don't have high speed rail" is not a valid comparison. No Republican states have passed legislation and spent tens of billions of dollars. Red states don't want to build high speed rail. Blue states do, and yet they fail.

It is shameful that the Acela isn't true high speed rail. That rail corridor is one of the most densely populated and economically productive regions of the world.

Coastal California is densely populated. Saying the country doesn't have dense enough population is stupid. California does. Here is an example of someone actually talking about hypothetical HSR routes with more thoughtful analysis than "flyover country isn't densely populated," and, shocker, LA to SF and LA to San Diego are both incredibly viable HSR corridors.

And a final concluding note: criticizing failures of Democratic governance is not, by default, to the say that Republican governance is preferable. The entire point here is that Republicans are an unacceptable alternative, and so we need Democrats to do better. The time for excuses is past.

That's not true about Republican states - both Florida and Texas planned to build high-speed rail.  In Florida's case, the government failed (just like California), but a corporation (Brightline) succeeded where the state failed.  Texas is in the planning stages.

One expert opinion I heard was that the primary obstacle to housing is local laws.  Not even state law, but local housing legislation.  Once people own a house, it is in their financial interest to block new housing.  They inflate demand by keeping it away from their property.  I believe there are examples in the U.S. with almost no zoning restrictions where housing isn't a problem, but I'm not that familiar with the topic.  But my impression is that "not in my backyard" (NIMBY) is a big obstacle to affordable housing, rather than policies at the state level.

California is a messy place, and there are plenty of things I see living here that I’d like to see changed. But, I’m always baffled by people who describe its problems as a crisis or suggest it needs massive changes because it is failing. It has had the biggest economy in the US since the beginning of the 1970’s. Texas’s economy is about 2/3 the size of California’s (2.7 trillion to 4.1 trillion). In 1990 Texas was, about 6/10ths (1 trillion to 1.7 trillion). So both states have grown at about the same rate for the last 30 years.

You replied to my post.  Where in my post do I "describe its[California's] problems as a crisis or suggest it needs massive changes because it is failing"?  I said none of those things, so I'm not sure why you replied to my post with that claim.

Vanguard Total World holds publicly traded companies from around the world, in proportion to their market weight.  Which of the most valuable companies in the world are headquartered in California?

#1 Apple
#3 Nvdia
#5 Meta (Facebook)
#6 Alphabet (Google)
#7 Broadcom
(#8 Google again, class C shares)
(most of #9 Tesla's growth occurred in California, but its headquarters are no longer there)
https://etfdb.com/etf/VT/#holdings

About half of the most valuable companies in the world are headquartered in Silicon Valley, California.  That counts for a significant part of California's economy.  And yet that is 3 million out of 39 million people living in California.  (And that 3 million includes teachers, restaurant workers, ...).  A small fraction of California is generating an outsized fraction of its economy.  You need to examine the haves and the have nots of California before making general statements about California's economy as a whole.

[Scandium]

Wintergreen, the focus on GDP growth is part of why we got our butts kicked in the last election.  Affordability matters.  GDP is an aggregate that means absolutely nothing to someone struggling with rent, or who cannot afford a home. 

I hate this stupid take, whether from Klein or whatever smug scolding liberal. There are two parties, so constantly whinging about what one party supposedly "did wrong" by not coddling uninformed morons enough and promising them gold bars gift basket from the government or whatever is exhausting. Why do democrats always have to deliver 100% of what voters could ever imagine, then some more, or else they loose every election for 10 years? Republicans can fuck everyone over, launch catastrophic invasions, attempt a coup (!), and crash the economy, and still get reelected? Harris did talk about helping the middle class, with actual plans. Trump talked about eating cats, deporting brown people, and arnold palmers dick!

Republicans do nothing to help the middle class, and have never. You just need to look at what they're doing now (and did under Reagan, GW, trump 1)... So why the hell is the focus only on "democrats had 12 proposals, but they should have had 18!". When the other candidate is babbling lunatic with no actual plans that make sense, any message that is legible should be more than enough. "California doesn't have high speed rail yet" is a stupid argument compared to everything (or anything) the GOP has done for 20 years.

Of course, you just need to listen to some focus groups with actual "normal" trump 2.0 voters (not maga brainmelted pschycos) to hear why. These people as uninformed and clueless retrogrades as trump himself. They have zero idea what trump actually said, or Harris for that matter. In some way I respect the Maga lunatics more; they actually know what hateful shit trump stands for, and they want it. The rest of the trump voters are just selfish, cruel people who have a vague sense that he's "abrasive", but don't give a shit because they think they would personally benefit and that's all that matters. Now I just hope they all get fired and loose their social security and have to eat dog food while having measles..

[neo von retorch]

<snip />

Clap, clap, clap! Yes.

Since I can't keep my own dumb mouth shut... yeah basically the uninformed "middle" that swings between Democrats and Republicans each election is actually what matters. They get "vibes" based on how they feel "the economy" is, and if they don't like it, they vote for the other guys.

Looking to blame Democrats for those voters voting to "fix inflation" (which had already cooled) is stupid. No, bad, newpaper, spray bottle!

[ChpBstrd]

Wintergreen, the focus on GDP growth is part of why we got our butts kicked in the last election.  Affordability matters.  GDP is an aggregate that means absolutely nothing to someone struggling with rent, or who cannot afford a home. 

I hate this stupid take, whether from Klein or whatever smug scolding liberal. There are two parties, so constantly whinging about what one party supposedly "did wrong" by not coddling uninformed morons enough and promising them gold bars gift basket from the government or whatever is exhausting. Why do democrats always have to deliver 100% of what voters could ever imagine, then some more, or else they loose every election for 10 years? Republicans can fuck everyone over, launch catastrophic invasions, attempt a coup (!), and crash the economy, and still get reelected? Harris did talk about helping the middle class, with actual plans. Trump talked about eating cats, deporting brown people, and arnold palmers dick!

Republicans do nothing to help the middle class, and have never. You just need to look at what they're doing now (and did under Reagan, GW, trump 1)... So why the hell is the focus only on "democrats had 12 proposals, but they should have had 18!". When the other candidate is babbling lunatic with no actual plans that make sense, any message that is legible should be more than enough. "California doesn't have high speed rail yet" is a stupid argument compared to everything (or anything) the GOP has done for 20 years.

Just take one more step and understand that we're operating under an incorrect assumption: that delivering benefits matters in elections.

Nope!

What matters in elections is control over the narrative of why everything sucks. And everything will always suck to a nation of workaholic consuma-suckas, no matter how high GDP goes. Is there an expectation that permanent contentment will fall across the land just as soon as our SUVs, meal portions, or stock portfolios get big enough? Is there some line that is crossed? Of course not.

Republicans have mastered the art of delivering nothing to their working class voters, but making them feel like they're a part of the narrative of resistance against Dems, who are the problem and represent the status quo. That's controlling the narrative, and many of the people working in jobs funded by Biden's Inflation Reduction Act will be voting R for that reason.

[wenchsenior]

Wintergreen, the focus on GDP growth is part of why we got our butts kicked in the last election.  Affordability matters.  GDP is an aggregate that means absolutely nothing to someone struggling with rent, or who cannot afford a home. 

I hate this stupid take, whether from Klein or whatever smug scolding liberal. There are two parties, so constantly whinging about what one party supposedly "did wrong" by not coddling uninformed morons enough and promising them gold bars gift basket from the government or whatever is exhausting. Why do democrats always have to deliver 100% of what voters could ever imagine, then some more, or else they loose every election for 10 years? Republicans can fuck everyone over, launch catastrophic invasions, attempt a coup (!), and crash the economy, and still get reelected? Harris did talk about helping the middle class, with actual plans. Trump talked about eating cats, deporting brown people, and arnold palmers dick!

Republicans do nothing to help the middle class, and have never. You just need to look at what they're doing now (and did under Reagan, GW, trump 1)... So why the hell is the focus only on "democrats had 12 proposals, but they should have had 18!". When the other candidate is babbling lunatic with no actual plans that make sense, any message that is legible should be more than enough. "California doesn't have high speed rail yet" is a stupid argument compared to everything (or anything) the GOP has done for 20 years.

Just take one more step and understand that we're operating under an incorrect assumption: that delivering benefits matters in elections.

Nope!

What matters in elections is control over the narrative of why everything sucks. And everything will always suck to a nation of workaholic consuma-suckas, no matter how high GDP goes. Is there an expectation that permanent contentment will fall across the land just as soon as our SUVs, meal portions, or stock portfolios get big enough? Is there some line that is crossed? Of course not.

Republicans have mastered the art of delivering nothing to their working class voters, but making them feel like they're a part of the narrative of resistance against Dems, who are the problem and represent the status quo. That's controlling the narrative, and many of the people working in jobs funded by Biden's Inflation Reduction Act will be voting R for that reason.

Agree. Ideally, delivering actual results and clearly communicating those results would deliver votes, but often that delivery is highly imperfect. What seems to deliver votes is effective messaging about whatever voters DO NOT LIKE at that given point in time. Ideally you get both (results and effective messaging about societal problems).

[neo von retorch]

Agree. Ideally, delivering actual results and clearly communicating those results would deliver votes, but often that delivery is highly imperfect. What seems to deliver votes is effective messaging about whatever voters DO NOT LIKE at that given point in time. Ideally you get both (results and effective messaging about societal problems).

Such a good point... deeply based in human psychology.

People exert more effort to avoid losses than to obtain gains

MAGA: "coastal elites bad, non-whites bad, expensive eggs bad, other countries bad, the worst you've ever seen. we'll help you crush all the bad things"
Democrats: "there's so much to go around, let's make it all better for everyone and research how to make the future even better!"

Voters... "eh, I hate bad things! that's a bigger concern than pursuing good things"

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I suspect many people in this thread underestimate the importance of social conservatism in Republican politics.  Liberals started calling anyone "trans-phobic" who disagreed with their take.  Imagine how churches reacted to that - to the idea god made a mistake in people's gender.

Democrats support low-polling ideas that hurt them in elections.  Progressives are adamant about trans-women being women, and participating in women's sports.  They claim conservatives are making too much of a big deal about people like Lia Thomas, who switched from a male 500th+ ranked swimmer to #1 in women's swimming.  But in the polls, 66% of Americans are strongly against this, 19% are undecided, and 15% are strongly in favor of biological men in women's sports.  If you have an issue where 4 times as many people are on your side, of course that issue should be repeated often.  Liberals take the bait.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/26/americans-have-grown-more-supportive-of-restrictions-for-trans-people-in-recent-years/
(poll from one month ago, end of Feb 2025)

Meanwhile, "protect trans people from discrimination in jobs, housing, and public spaces (restaurants, etc)" has 56% strongly in favor, and 26% strongly against.  Even as Democrats complain Republicans focus on an issue that isn't very important, they get stuck on that issue, instead of focusing on job and housing discrimination, which has a far larger impact - and broad support on their side.

[Scandium]

Liberals started calling anyone "trans-phobic" who disagreed with their take.

Progressives are adamant about trans-women being women, and participating in women's sports. 

Ok. Do you have a source for Kamala Harris, congressional Democrats or others saying this? Did they advance any laws about "women in sports" (I honestly don't know). Does this actually happen? Or are we talking about "vibes" again? Excuse me if I find this victim mentality ("oh poor us") hard to believe, from people who call bomb threats to children's hospitals, assault Target employees for selling rainbow shirts, and harass parents and children with the highest suicide rate of any group. The people who's co-president has insulted and disowned his own daughter because she is trans!

One search on the topic I just found this:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/10/23/five-takeaways-from-harris-interview/75807424007/

Harris didn’t give a specific answer when asked whether she believes transgender Americans should have access to gender-affirming care.. "I think we should follow the law. I mean, I think you’re probably pointing to the fact that Donald Trump’s campaign has spent tens of millions of dollars…,”
[..]
Harris then said she won’t put herself in the position of doctors, whom she said have the right to make the decision “in terms of what is medically necessary.”

Meanwhile, "protect trans people from discrimination in jobs, housing, and public spaces (restaurants, etc)" has 56% strongly in favor, and 26% strongly against.  Even as Democrats complain Republicans focus on an issue that isn't very important, they get stuck on that issue, instead of focusing on job and housing discrimination, which has a far larger impact - and broad support on their side.

So you mean something like:

the vice president did tell Jackson Tuesday that, "I believe that all people should be treated with dignity and respect, period, and should not be vilified for who they are, and should not be bullied for who they are."

In any case, it's BS, because every swing voter poll found that the economy is was the top issue, followed by like 7 other things, before trans issues. That was only importnat to die-hard maga lunatics anyway

[Fru-Gal]

I don’t believe trans rights had anything to do with Trump’s win. But it made for great headlines.

Meanwhile, in real life…

Trans being added to LGBTQI+ was only ever meant to fracture the gay rights movement, which had attained conventional status. It was a Trojan horse for the left. No one was allowed to question trans ideology, medical treatment, etc.

The current administration is heavily financed by gay, married billionaires. Almost immediately upon attaining power, the Trump administration removed “TQI” from the “LGB” on their websites (stupid, but revealing).

Non-binary choice is great. There is also no doubt that trans people exist and have rights but it was blown way out of proportion. Any parent of teens or any school teacher saw an EXPLOSION of trans children in the last 5 years. It had all the markings of social contagion and I was shocked to see DOZENS of children my kids grew up with becoming trans, taking hormones, getting their breasts cut off, etc.

My kids are young adults and among their peers there are still many who switched gender and whose parents have embraced their choices. Very frequently, these kids were suffering many mental health comorbidities and of course the poor parents would do whatever possible to merely keep their kids alive. Surgery was fairly uncommon, but hormone use starting in adolescence was not. Ironic, considering that excessive estrogens or androgens are not healthy, much less for lifelong use.

That’s not to say that the right’s messaging was correct. But the left took the bait and proceeded to defend all trans issues with no exceptions. It absolutely pained me to see my kids’ best friends fall down this rabbit hole where instead of being allowed to be gay, they had to be trans. It’s like the new conversion therapy, only it requires expensive surgery and hormones.

You can also watch tons of interviews with trans women who regret having their genitals operated on. There were so many lies and nonsensical arguments made. Ultimately becoming trans as an identity meant an all-absorbing, multi-year project for anyone who undertook it. Unfortunately when the project is “over” you’re left with a partially functioning body and no more knowledge of how to be happy in it.

However…. Here’s a wrinkle in my whole political theory and recent parental/peer experience as described above: the increasing prevalence of gender dysphoria over the last 20 years seems to be worldwide. One Swedish study looked at thousands of twins from 2000-2016 and found no genetic correlation but DID posit that intrauterine hormones might be influencing sexually dimorphic brain development. For example, in boy-girl twins, the hormones of one twin might influence the other.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-17749-0

[mtnrider]

...
EXPLOSION of trans children in the last 5 years. It had all the markings of social contagion and I was shocked to see DOZENS of children my kids grew up with becoming trans
...

I wonder if your numbers are due to a confounding variable?  My understanding is that the number of self-identified trans people is around 1%.  Meanwhile, in some programming language communities like Rust, one-third identify as trans.  In my experience, they all came out 10-15 years ago.  All as adults.  One told me that they weren't gay.  I'm clueless, but it seems like that is a distinction they make.

In any case, it's unhelpful to be arguing about trophies.  If we want fair sports, create classes based on testosterone levels.  Add it to performance enhancing drugs levels to solve two problems at once.  Or create a special class for trans people.  Or add weight classes, like boxing.  I don't understand trans, but do understand that they are different, and that they deserve to be treated with dignity.  We can recognize that they are different and move on.  Many grow up to become contributing members of society.

Or is your point that parents were becoming panicked that their kid would somehow become trans, so the messaging landed, much like it did in 2004 election and the respect for marriage act?

[mtnrider]

Meanwhile, "protect trans people from discrimination in jobs, housing, and public spaces (restaurants, etc)" has 56% strongly in favor, and 26% strongly against.  Even as Democrats complain Republicans focus on an issue that isn't very important, they get stuck on that issue, instead of focusing on job and housing discrimination, which has a far larger impact - and broad support on their side.

Ah yes.  Start here and see where it goes. 

Or even better, focus on increasing the housing stock and reducing discrimination for everyone!

[Fru-Gal]

...
EXPLOSION of trans children in the last 5 years. It had all the markings of social contagion and I was shocked to see DOZENS of children my kids grew up with becoming trans
...

I wonder if your numbers are due to a confounding variable?  My understanding is that the number of self-identified trans people is around 1%.  Meanwhile, in some programming language communities like Rust, one-third identify as trans.  In my experience, they all came out 10-15 years ago.  All as adults.  One told me that they weren't gay.  I'm clueless, but it seems like that is a distinction they make.

In any case, it's unhelpful to be arguing about trophies.  If we want fair sports, create classes based on testosterone levels.  Add it to performance enhancing drugs levels to solve two problems at once.  Or create a special class for trans people.  Or add weight classes, like boxing.  I don't understand trans, but do understand that they are different, and that they deserve to be treated with dignity.  We can recognize that they are different and move on.  Many grow up to become contributing members of society.

Or is your point that parents were becoming panicked that their kid would somehow become trans, so the messaging landed, much like it did in 2004 election and the respect for marriage act?

Yeah I think the messaging hit a nerve, and there is a propaganda component as well that has been documented.

I’d guess the confounding variable was living in a liberal, HCOL area. I only know three surgeries (female to male). The rest are taking hormones. 2022 was the year it really exploded in our social circles. Primarily female-to-male. It feels like it’s less now, but I also don’t have pre-teens or teenagers anymore so may not be aware of where things stand.

My family members who are teachers tell me it’s still a major issue for their students. But changing your gender identity is super cool. What’s not cool is the idea that your gender identity is biological and that you should undergo dangerous cosmetic treatments to deal with that. If it’s dysphoria, a mental disorder, why is the body getting changed to match the disorder? Again, this is a matter of personal choice, but the anti-transphobes made it transphobic to stay in your natural body while experiencing dysphoria — the only supposed solution to the dysphoria was erasure of biological gender differences. And there are tons of older trans people who have made it their mission to fight this agenda.

[jrhampt]

I don’t understand trans either.  I mean, I understand not wanting to be confined by gender stereotypes and behavior rules.  I think gender shouldn’t matter much in an ideal world and I think everyone should be able to dress and act in ways that they want to regardless of sex.  I sort of understand why you might want to be a man if you’re a woman (because the world is not a feminist utopia).  I really don’t get why anyone would choose to be a woman…and yet the only trans people I know (that I know of at least) are an adult couple who both transitioned to female. 

But I do know that I don’t have to understand because it’s none of my business what people want to do with their own bodies.  I can think it’s a mistake or grotesque even (tattoos or Kimberly guilfoyle for instance, some of the things I’ve done to my own body at times), but it’s my job to support bodily autonomy and treat people like human beings regardless.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

100% of voters didn't vote on the economy, that's an exageraton.

"GOP ads on transgender rights are dominating airwaves in the election's closing days"
"In extremely tight races where small shifts matter, divisive social issues can move the needle."
"Republicans are making similar bets in the House and Senate races that help determine control of the next Congress."
https://www.npr.org/2024/10/19/g-s1-28932/donald-trump-transgender-ads-kamala-harris

As to Kamala Harris, she supported "transition treatment" in 2019, but limited herself to following the law in 2024, when running for President.

Trump's campaign has seized on Harris' past comments affirming her support for transgender inmates to receive care.
In 2019, she did support "providing essential medical care to deliver transition treatment."

"I will follow the law, a law that Donald Trump actually followed," Harris said. "You're probably familiar with now, it's a public report that under Donald Trump's administration, these surgeries were available on a medical necessity basis to people in the federal prison system."

https://abc7.com/post/election-fact-check-donald-trump-kamala-harris-transgender-issues/15495931/

[Scandium]

100% of voters didn't vote on the economy, that's an exageraton.

"GOP ads on transgender rights are dominating airwaves in the election's closing days"
"In extremely tight races where small shifts matter, divisive social issues can move the needle."
"Republicans are making similar bets in the House and Senate races that help determine control of the next Congress."
https://www.npr.org/2024/10/19/g-s1-28932/donald-trump-transgender-ads-kamala-harris

As to Kamala Harris, she supported "transition treatment" in 2019, but limited herself to following the law in 2024, when running for President.

Trump's campaign has seized on Harris' past comments affirming her support for transgender inmates to receive care.
In 2019, she did support "providing essential medical care to deliver transition treatment."

"I will follow the law, a law that Donald Trump actually followed," Harris said. "You're probably familiar with now, it's a public report that under Donald Trump's administration, these surgeries were available on a medical necessity basis to people in the federal prison system."

https://abc7.com/post/election-fact-check-donald-trump-kamala-harris-transgender-issues/15495931/

I didn't say it's 100%. It's just way down the list of issues voters listed as priorities. Yes I know they spent a lot of money on it, but that doesn't mean it was effective. I'll never ascribe competence to the trump campaign.

I also thought that whole "trans prisoners" thing was extra stupid. Contrary to what many seem to believe, prisoners are still humans. So yes I think providing them with medical care is not some horrible mistake. Is providing heart surgery to prisoners also a problem? Especially among maga is caring for other people one of the worst things you can do.. They're vile people.

[mtnrider]

I also thought that whole "trans prisoners" thing was extra stupid. Contrary to what many seem to believe, prisoners are still humans. So yes I think providing them with medical care is not some horrible mistake. Is providing heart surgery to prisoners also a problem? Especially among maga is caring for other people one of the worst things you can do.. They're vile people.

Some of the agency heads wear a cross on the outside of their clothing.  I wonder how many stop to think - what would Jesus do in these situations?

But it's a losing proposition to point out the hypocrisy.  Better to focus on solutions that help improve everyone's lives.

[Herbert Derp]

...
EXPLOSION of trans children in the last 5 years. It had all the markings of social contagion and I was shocked to see DOZENS of children my kids grew up with becoming trans
...

I wonder if your numbers are due to a confounding variable?  My understanding is that the number of self-identified trans people is around 1%.

The number of transgender people has indeed been increasing rapidly in recent years, especially among the younger generations. Whether the increase is due to social or environmental factors is currently unknown.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/10/science/transgender-teenagers-national-survey.html

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/24/an-explosion-what-is-behind-the-rise-in-girls-questioning-their-gender-identity

https://www.generationtechblog.com/p/transgender-identity-how-much-has

[twinstudy]

I suspect many people in this thread underestimate the importance of social conservatism in Republican politics.  Liberals started calling anyone "trans-phobic" who disagreed with their take.  Imagine how churches reacted to that - to the idea god made a mistake in people's gender.

Democrats support low-polling ideas that hurt them in elections.  Progressives are adamant about trans-women being women, and participating in women's sports.  They claim conservatives are making too much of a big deal about people like Lia Thomas, who switched from a male 500th+ ranked swimmer to #1 in women's swimming.  But in the polls, 66% of Americans are strongly against this, 19% are undecided, and 15% are strongly in favor of biological men in women's sports.  If you have an issue where 4 times as many people are on your side, of course that issue should be repeated often.  Liberals take the bait.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/26/americans-have-grown-more-supportive-of-restrictions-for-trans-people-in-recent-years/
(poll from one month ago, end of Feb 2025)

Meanwhile, "protect trans people from discrimination in jobs, housing, and public spaces (restaurants, etc)" has 56% strongly in favor, and 26% strongly against.  Even as Democrats complain Republicans focus on an issue that isn't very important, they get stuck on that issue, instead of focusing on job and housing discrimination, which has a far larger impact - and broad support on their side.

Everyone has an in-group and you will get more traction in fomenting dissent against the out-group than you will by promoting policies to bring more people into an in-group. That's why conservatives naturally have an advantage in elections. Note that I use the word 'conservative' in a fairly value-neutral way. I mean that whichever group espouses the incumbent societal values. Change is very slow, and people feel very threatened.

[LaineyAZ]

Reminds me of the successful campaign led by Phyllis Schlafly in the 1970s against the Equal Rights Amendment.

She stressed 2 things:  that it would result in same-sex bathrooms, and that women would have to fight in combat roles in the military.
And now in 2025 and both things are here and life goes on as usual but the ERA is stalled.  Propaganda wins.

[Fru-Gal]

Reminds me of the successful campaign led by Phyllis Schlafly in the 1970s against the Equal Rights Amendment.

She stressed 2 things:  that it would result in same-sex bathrooms, and that women would have to fight in combat roles in the military.
And now in 2025 and both things are here and life goes on as usual but the ERA is stalled.  Propaganda wins.

How interesting.

[Weisass]

...
EXPLOSION of trans children in the last 5 years. It had all the markings of social contagion and I was shocked to see DOZENS of children my kids grew up with becoming trans
...

I wonder if your numbers are due to a confounding variable?  My understanding is that the number of self-identified trans people is around 1%.

The number of transgender people has indeed been increasing rapidly in recent years, especially among the younger generations. Whether the increase is due to social or environmental factors is currently unknown.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/10/science/transgender-teenagers-national-survey.html

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/24/an-explosion-what-is-behind-the-rise-in-girls-questioning-their-gender-identity

https://www.generationtechblog.com/p/transgender-identity-how-much-has

And you saw a similar "explosion" amongst people who felt safe self-identifying as gay when the social acceptability was changing, but it leveled out. I'm cautious to call a 1-2% increase amongst a cohort of children an explosion, and while it is a substantial increase, it remains to see how it levels out.

to add some shading to this, I have certainly observed an increase in kids who identify as trans-affirming or nonbinary. What I have *not* seen is a substantial increase in children on hormone therapy or permanent transitions. I'm a parent of four kids, I work with kids in my job, and the number of kids I have seen who meet the medical criteria of "transitioning" is single digits. But that is just my observation, so it is limited by what one person is seeing. which, I would argue, is what a lot of people who are freaking out over this are using to make general statements about the state of gender issues in children.

[mtnrider]

...
EXPLOSION of trans children in the last 5 years. It had all the markings of social contagion and I was shocked to see DOZENS of children my kids grew up with becoming trans
...

I wonder if your numbers are due to a confounding variable?  My understanding is that the number of self-identified trans people is around 1%.

The number of transgender people has indeed been increasing rapidly in recent years, especially among the younger generations. Whether the increase is due to social or environmental factors is currently unknown.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/10/science/transgender-teenagers-national-survey.html

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/24/an-explosion-what-is-behind-the-rise-in-girls-questioning-their-gender-identity

https://www.generationtechblog.com/p/transgender-identity-how-much-has

And you saw a similar "explosion" amongst people who felt safe self-identifying as gay when the social acceptability was changing, but it leveled out. I'm cautious to call a 1-2% increase amongst a cohort of children an explosion, and while it is a substantial increase, it remains to see how it levels out.

to add some shading to this, I have certainly observed an increase in kids who identify as trans-affirming or nonbinary. What I have *not* seen is a substantial increase in children on hormone therapy or permanent transitions. I'm a parent of four kids, I work with kids in my job, and the number of kids I have seen who meet the medical criteria of "transitioning" is single digits. But that is just my observation, so it is limited by what one person is seeing. which, I would argue, is what a lot of people who are freaking out over this are using to make general statements about the state of gender issues in children.

My feelings as well.  For a while it felt like every third engineer I met was trans or gay.  Same for young adults.  But stepping back, it seems like it's that a number of things: a bunch of new people are coming out, now that it's safer; word spreads about safe communities (eg Rust) so they gather there; and I was biased towards remembering these more memorable people.

Maybe this is my normalcy bias, but let's take a breather for a few more years to see what the trend is.

[ChpBstrd]

This may rub some folks the wrong way, but there may be incentives for people to present themselves a certain way or identify with a particular label, and these incentives may go beyond the fulfillment of one's innate gender/sexuality.

I've noticed some women, for example, will dress or present themselves in a way that has a side effect of repelling a certain category of men who they are not interested in. Fed up with being hit on by the sort of men whose cultural concepts of attractiveness comes from old movies or Fox News hosts? Dye your hair pink and get a nose ring! Want less attention in general? Make your appearance less impressive. Want more attention in general? Change your appearance to get more attention. There is so much effort and thought applied to women's appearances because appearances can act like a spreadsheet filter allowing them to dial in the amount and type of sexualized attention they receive from appealing or non-appealing people. Such choices may also affect access and invitations to certain social, religious, and worksite places.

Given that gender is largely a cultural invention (clothes, hair, makeup, and roles are the main aspect of being any particular gender on a day to day basis), and that the same superficial appearance choices which are aspects of gender are also useful for this filtering purpose, what if some people find a gender or sexual identity label useful solely for filtering purposes. This might involve dishonestly presenting oneself as LGBTQ when one is not, or thinking of oneself as an identity because of the external benefits rather than because of internal urges.

"I'm lesbian/queer/non-binary" might deflect some unwanted cis-male attention and grant oneself exemption from stifling cis-female gender roles. "I'm gay/queer/non-binary" might grant oneself exemption from conform to stifling cis-male gender roles. Obviously, the cost of identifying as a sexual/gender minority would have to be less than the benefits of doing so, but arguably the costs have fallen in recent decades.

This line of thinking could explain the rapid increases in the number of young people identifying with minority sexual/gender labels. As the cost went down, the appeal of escaping stifling norms and unwanted attention through this route increased.

OR, I might be wrong to think in a way that suggests there are legitimate LGBTQ people and pretenders. Maybe the option to choose one's own label always had inputs from the external world and the expected behaviors of others. Or, maybe the real driver is the increasingly narrow range of acceptable ways to behave in cis-world. "Boys don't cry" has evolved into "what do you mean you don't drive a $70,000 crew cab 4wd pickup truck?" and concepts of feminine prettiness have become so costly, time-consuming, and self-esteem destroying that they're impossible to maintain. Perhaps the labels themselves have move to extremes, and your average person in the middle of the distribution has more to do with queerness than the extreme macho-man/Barbie requirements of cis culture?

Perhaps it's totally off topic. But this bigger picture might include the context where a lot of cis-bros idolize Elon Musk and Donald Trump for their wealth, status, and sexual escapades. As "traditional" as they claim to be, their own concept of gender and sexuality is new, restrictive, costly, and nothing like the expectations their grandfathers' conformed to. Yes, today's cis-masculinity is as new as today's concepts of non-binary or queer. If this is the new definition of masculinity, most men who weren't trying hard to conform to the cis-bros would be pushed into the non-binary category. Maybe being cisgender is what got weird.

[Fru-Gal]

Oooh, I like your very last sentence there.

There were absolutely incentives and a lot of of the (right wing) trans activists on YouTube who were against so many people transitioning made exactly this point. A lot of people were getting groomed to become trans. Choosing your identity is fine, but making irrevocable choices is not and can lead to a lot of misery. So then you have all these people detransitioning and that’s hard too.

One of the points made was that if you have sort of felt malaise all your life and wondered do I have this? Do I have that? And then you find the trans community and say oh maybe this is it… That’s a sign that, no, you probably don’t have the kind of gender dysphoria that these people have. Of course these are broad generalizations, but I think they explain a lot.

It’s also really sad that you just can’t be a lady boy or a manly girl. Because these doctors who are practicing on your genitals are giving results no different from the genital mutilation scare that was so big a few decades ago.

But it is fair to characterize trans surgery in the same bucket as the gender affirming surgery that Elon Musk has had with transplants, jaw transplant, possible work on his penis, and his use of human growth hormone without exercise resulting in a classic barrel chest 😆 .

[RetiredAt63]

This may rub some folks the wrong way, but there may be incentives for people to present themselves a certain way or identify with a particular label, and these incentives may go beyond the fulfillment of one's innate gender/sexuality.

I've noticed some women, for example, will dress or present themselves in a way that has a side effect of repelling a certain category of men who they are not interested in. Fed up with being hit on by the sort of men whose cultural concepts of attractiveness comes from old movies or Fox News hosts? Dye your hair pink and get a nose ring! Want less attention in general? Make your appearance less impressive. Want more attention in general? Change your appearance to get more attention. There is so much effort and thought applied to women's appearances because appearances can act like a spreadsheet filter allowing them to dial in the amount and type of sexualized attention they receive from appealing or non-appealing people. Such choices may also affect access and invitations to certain social, religious, and worksite places.

Given that gender is largely a cultural invention (clothes, hair, makeup, and roles are the main aspect of being any particular gender on a day to day basis), and that the same superficial appearance choices which are aspects of gender are also useful for this filtering purpose, what if some people find a gender or sexual identity label useful solely for filtering purposes. This might involve dishonestly presenting oneself as LGBTQ when one is not, or thinking of oneself as an identity because of the external benefits rather than because of internal urges.

"I'm lesbian/queer/non-binary" might deflect some unwanted cis-male attention and grant oneself exemption from stifling cis-female gender roles. "I'm gay/queer/non-binary" might grant oneself exemption from conform to stifling cis-male gender roles. Obviously, the cost of identifying as a sexual/gender minority would have to be less than the benefits of doing so, but arguably the costs have fallen in recent decades.

This line of thinking could explain the rapid increases in the number of young people identifying with minority sexual/gender labels. As the cost went down, the appeal of escaping stifling norms and unwanted attention through this route increased.

OR, I might be wrong to think in a way that suggests there are legitimate LGBTQ people and pretenders. Maybe the option to choose one's own label always had inputs from the external world and the expected behaviors of others. Or, maybe the real driver is the increasingly narrow range of acceptable ways to behave in cis-world. "Boys don't cry" has evolved into "what do you mean you don't drive a $70,000 crew cab 4wd pickup truck?" and concepts of feminine prettiness have become so costly, time-consuming, and self-esteem destroying that they're impossible to maintain. Perhaps the labels themselves have move to extremes, and your average person in the middle of the distribution has more to do with queerness than the extreme macho-man/Barbie requirements of cis culture?

Perhaps it's totally off topic. But this bigger picture might include the context where a lot of cis-bros idolize Elon Musk and Donald Trump for their wealth, status, and sexual escapades. As "traditional" as they claim to be, their own concept of gender and sexuality is new, restrictive, costly, and nothing like the expectations their grandfathers' conformed to. Yes, today's cis-masculinity is as new as today's concepts of non-binary or queer. If this is the new definition of masculinity, most men who weren't trying hard to conform to the cis-bros would be pushed into the non-binary category. Maybe being cisgender is what got weird.

Um, the counter-culture revolution was the reaction to the same narrow gender norms* of the 50s and 60s.  People didn't say they were the other sex (that was just as limiting).  They just didn't follow the norms. 

So people can fight back against gender norms.  Maybe American society should look at why it is defining each gender so narrowly? 

*Look at movies from then.  Think of the man in the grey flannel suit.  Women's hairstyles were very regimented.  So were women.

[GuitarStv]

Rigid gendering starts very early.  When my son was 4 years old he was very firm that none of his toys could come from the pink aisle in the toy store.  Because those were all girl's toys.  I found the unwavering dividing line between dolls/princesses/unicorns and cars/dinosaurs/tanks to be really bizarre.  I remember them at least sharing an aisle at the store when I was a kid.

[Fru-Gal]

This may rub some folks the wrong way, but there may be incentives for people to present themselves a certain way or identify with a particular label, and these incentives may go beyond the fulfillment of one's innate gender/sexuality.

I've noticed some women, for example, will dress or present themselves in a way that has a side effect of repelling a certain category of men who they are not interested in. Fed up with being hit on by the sort of men whose cultural concepts of attractiveness comes from old movies or Fox News hosts? Dye your hair pink and get a nose ring! Want less attention in general? Make your appearance less impressive. Want more attention in general? Change your appearance to get more attention. There is so much effort and thought applied to women's appearances because appearances can act like a spreadsheet filter allowing them to dial in the amount and type of sexualized attention they receive from appealing or non-appealing people. Such choices may also affect access and invitations to certain social, religious, and worksite places.

Given that gender is largely a cultural invention (clothes, hair, makeup, and roles are the main aspect of being any particular gender on a day to day basis), and that the same superficial appearance choices which are aspects of gender are also useful for this filtering purpose, what if some people find a gender or sexual identity label useful solely for filtering purposes. This might involve dishonestly presenting oneself as LGBTQ when one is not, or thinking of oneself as an identity because of the external benefits rather than because of internal urges.

"I'm lesbian/queer/non-binary" might deflect some unwanted cis-male attention and grant oneself exemption from stifling cis-female gender roles. "I'm gay/queer/non-binary" might grant oneself exemption from conform to stifling cis-male gender roles. Obviously, the cost of identifying as a sexual/gender minority would have to be less than the benefits of doing so, but arguably the costs have fallen in recent decades.

This line of thinking could explain the rapid increases in the number of young people identifying with minority sexual/gender labels. As the cost went down, the appeal of escaping stifling norms and unwanted attention through this route increased.

OR, I might be wrong to think in a way that suggests there are legitimate LGBTQ people and pretenders. Maybe the option to choose one's own label always had inputs from the external world and the expected behaviors of others. Or, maybe the real driver is the increasingly narrow range of acceptable ways to behave in cis-world. "Boys don't cry" has evolved into "what do you mean you don't drive a $70,000 crew cab 4wd pickup truck?" and concepts of feminine prettiness have become so costly, time-consuming, and self-esteem destroying that they're impossible to maintain. Perhaps the labels themselves have move to extremes, and your average person in the middle of the distribution has more to do with queerness than the extreme macho-man/Barbie requirements of cis culture?

Perhaps it's totally off topic. But this bigger picture might include the context where a lot of cis-bros idolize Elon Musk and Donald Trump for their wealth, status, and sexual escapades. As "traditional" as they claim to be, their own concept of gender and sexuality is new, restrictive, costly, and nothing like the expectations their grandfathers' conformed to. Yes, today's cis-masculinity is as new as today's concepts of non-binary or queer. If this is the new definition of masculinity, most men who weren't trying hard to conform to the cis-bros would be pushed into the non-binary category. Maybe being cisgender is what got weird.

Um, the counter-culture revolution was the reaction to the same narrow gender norms* of the 50s and 60s.  People didn't say they were the other sex (that was just as limiting).  They just didn't follow the norms. 

So people can fight back against gender norms.  Maybe American society should look at why it is defining each gender so narrowly? 

*Look at movies from then.  Think of the man in the grey flannel suit.  Women's hairstyles were very regimented.  So were women.

I read a biography of of David Bowie and he played with his gender presentation for completely commercial reasons. He was assumed to be gay as well, but never was. And that was a common thing to do to gain a counterculture audience.

[ChpBstrd]

@Fru-Gal I'm reluctant to go down the road of saying some villain is persuading people to go with a sexual/gender minority label. Any doctor capable of doing gender reassignment surgery could probably be earning more money and fighting insurance less if they'd switch to cleaning the McDonalds juice out of people coronary arteries. Similarly, the oft-villified "media," whatever that term means today, seems more interested in making money from hyper-gender-role movies like Thor or countless movies with conventionally attractive actresses than in exploring what it means to have XY chromosomes and be obsessed with My Little Pony, or XX chromosomes and to be a plumber.

The YT critics don't make sense if they acknowledge the incentives to escape cisworld but then go on to claim villains are grooming people to become trans. Why would we need villains if there are incentives? And if we are to have villains, what is the incentive to work as a groomer to turn cis kids into LGBTQ kids? Is that really a job?

@RetiredAt63 you might be onto something. As gender norms became increasingly more and more narrow in the 1950s, the blowback was the sexual revolution that started in the 1960s. People were in competition to conform more perfectly with norms of manliness and femininity, and what we got were a bunch of men with long hair and flowing blouses, essentially saying "I want out of this nonsense." They weren't just making themselves unappealing as draftees, they were signaling an indifferent neutrality to the game of gender normativity the mainstream culture was playing. The presence of other people doing the same created the option to obtain social status without the approval of the normies. Eventually the culture came to accept men with pony tails and women working in physically demanding jobs, and for a time there were lots of ways to be a cis man or woman.

Did something similar happen in recent decades? Did the two cisgender identities again become, narrow, costly, and competitive? Maybe so, but things are not as strict as the 1950s for sure. Maybe instead the LGBTQ rights revolution both lowered the cost (discrimination) and build the communities (alternative source of social status and support) which enabled more people to escape the gulag of cisworld. Whether or not those escapees really belonged in LGBTQworld is maybe not a relevant question.

Fru-Gal asked, why can't "you just can’t be a lady boy or a manly girl?" and that's a very, very interesting question.

How did cisworld become a nightmare of conformity, competition, stereotypes, and required product purchases? Presumably, people were jostling for relative status over one another, and started bullying the less-hyper-conforming men and women into lower status roles or forcing them to do increasingly inconvenient things. And eventually this cost exceeded the cost of deciding one belonged in LGBTQworld.

But if that's the mechanism, the same thing could eventually happen within any of the categories of LGBTQworld.

[Log]

...

I think there's something to this. A disproportionate amount of the recent rise in adolescent trans identification has been among young girls, and there are a lot of parallels between trans identification and eating disorders that are along these lines. Girls' discomfort with the attention of men leads them to starve themselves to try to prevent puberty, to remain child-like and un-sexual. Both spread in social clusters, or via social media rabbit holes. There's undeniably a social contagion element to how the same kinds of psychological distress can manifest in different contexts. Just look at something like the dancing plague.

There's also interesting research that shows gendered personality differences actually increase in societies that become more gender equal. So the idea that our normative conceptions of masculinity and femininity are becoming more extreme could in fact be a direct consequence of our smashing success at becoming a more gender equal society. (The link to the source in this blog post is broken, but here's a source I trust discussing this finding)

[kei te pai]

Was it his child transitioning that tipped Elon into crazy?

[Metalcat]

Was it his child transitioning that tipped Elon into crazy?

I think that's just a drop in a very, very large bucket of things that have contributed to his dysfunction.

But he's always had issues.

That said, his trans kid openly, publicly insulting him is definitely a likely culprit behind his particular disdain for trans folks, because he cannot stand being criticized.

But I'm pretty sure being raised by the loathesome creep who impregnated his own step daughter probably started all of this. You don't end up with a personality like Elon's because of what happens in your adult years.