Ep 28 - Any Boundary That Shouldn't Be Crossed?

In this episode, we look at how language around transgender issues has changed in the last few years, reflecting an evolving rhetoric. Since our meta-narrative, values, and norms are related, this is one more manifestation of the new civic religion that has evolved. 

Transcript

Welcome back to The Willing Fool. This is episode four. I'm your host and lead fool, Paul Tremble. Excited to continue talking with you. We've been talking quite a bit this season about this new shared narrative that we have. When I say new, I mean the last few hundred years, and just some of the outworkings we're seeing of that in our current, current, um, state with hot button issues, things from the conflict.

In Israel, Hamas in Israel, uh, things like we'll be talking about sexual identity and expression. We'll even be talking in this episode about trans issues. We've talked about men and women, inequality, and so all these things that may seem like various unrelated hot button issues, but I'm, I'm doing my best to make the case that in many ways these are connected.

And one of the ways they're connected is that. In our current state where we really do not have, as a culture, a shared metanarrative, and therefore we do not have shared values, other than the two we've talked about, which is, uh, our values are freedom and equality, so the only sins, therefore, are things that infringe upon that.

Uh, namely, oppression and inequality. Uh, it really explains the, the, the kind of common take on each of these issues, because if you look at them through that lens that these are the only values and these are the only sins, then really the, the die is cast. There's really only one position to take that makes sense in each of these scenarios.

Uh, my position is that's a woefully inadequate way of looking at Life in reality. It's a lot more complex than that and a lot more interesting. I would say and We're just kind of taking a tour through these various hot button issues And I'm I'm giving different ways to think about them saying what I think our weakness is about this way of looking at things And eventually we're gonna get to that what we've talked about this this image it's been running through is the common thread the season of of Jesus walking through The villages and fields and roads of his day at times seemingly content to reflect on nature and Meditate deeply on the flowers of the field and the birds of the air but also at the same time being prepared and willing and ready to enter into the heart of the most tense geopolitics the most tense disagreements religious political and otherwise of his day And he went, you know, back and forth, up and down, however you want to describe it, through those various layers of reality, as one integrated person.

And I find that harder and harder to do. I began this season, we talked about the, the message I heard at a church service, and the person was saying, you know, I don't know what to do with these world events here, and so I'm just gonna, kind of, I'm paraphrasing obviously, I'm gonna forget about it and just believe the Bible!

And I understood where he's coming from and I've taken that view at different times, but I think in Jesus you see something different and you experience something different and I mentioned in his day, in that place, in that time. There wasn't these compartments where, okay, over here is your religion, and over here is social stuff, and over here is your personal, private devotion, and your personal, private beliefs.

They were all mixed together, and in our culture, we've had this sort of truce where we're going to keep things. Uh, in their various compartments for the most part, and occasionally there's skirmishes on the boundary lines, but, but generally we try to keep them pretty compartmentalized, and that's a choice that we've made, but you could argue that it's, it's not going to work the best in the long run, even if it was well intentioned, uh, and so I'm doing my best to sort of break down those boundaries in my own mind and heart.

And then just talk through what that might look like as it relates to these things, because I don't know about you, but I feel and sense these things happening in our culture and you hear how people are, are describing their thinking, their feelings, their rhetoric, and, and then, you know, it feels compelling.

Like there's a pressure to think, wait, is that right? Does that make sense? And then it's, it's not just theoretical, but at times it plays out in these, these flashpoints, these. Culture clashes or clashes where it's like, well, what is right about this? You know, what about kids that are taking hormones to do puberty blocking?

And what if that's my kid or what if that's my friend's kid? Or, or, you know, what's being taught in the classroom to the schools? I think these are real things to people. And I'm just giving a few examples. Um, obviously they're somewhat random and there's many, many more, but these are some of the ones that hit home and carry a lot of weight.

So I want to keep talking about it. I did want to circle back to one thing before I continue on into the topic of today. And, and that is, um, Uh, we talked in previous episode about the Israel slash Hamas conflict, which is now aging. Um, I'm saying this, this lesson in December, this episode in December, and, um,

I just, as I reflected, I thought, you know, what might be behind people somewhat seemingly mindlessly cheering on the Uh, war crimes of Hamas, you know, these horrific scenes and, you know, people, some people have kind of hid behind, well, I just want to be generally supportive of, of, uh, you know, taking back land or the Palestinian cause, but not Hamas.

And many other people have been pretty just explicitly pro Hamas, pro terrorism, pro wow. You know, the things that happened, uh. We're unspeakable horrors. And so what might be behind that? And it's just this sort of almost seemingly undiscriminating support that people have justified on the basis of, well, it opposes this, this other wrong.

And is it possible that in our desire to quote support the oppressed, we. Don't look at them as real people, like fully human and who they are and, uh, taking them seriously, like taking them at their word, taking them at their actions because it would seem so bizarre and unwise to support a group because they're not empowered, um, until the

very explicit plan to kill, maim, oppress, uh, exercise dominance over, uh, all these things that a group like Hamas has said they wanted to do and done at every opportunity. And then to take them seriously once they're in power, once they're actually obviously in the role of oppressor. And say, well, now we oppose your oppressive tendencies and your, your dysfunctions and your, your warpedness and your, you know, the ways in which you are dehumanizing others.

It would just seem really bizarre to support them temporarily because they are in the role of, quote, oppressed. And then flip as soon as they get in power, which could be the difference of one day, let's be honest, in theory anyway. And say, well, now you guys are the bad guys, and we'll support anybody who opposes you, no matter how bad they are.

I mean, just the folly involved of that, uh, seems, I don't know, it seems very obvious. And, um, so I think, you could look at pointing out a group's dysfunctions and flaws, even if there's some sense in which they have been in a role of oppressor at some point or currently. You could look at that and say, how dare you?

How dare you contribute to the oppression of the oppressed? Um, and that's one way you could look at it, but, but maybe you could look at it as, well, to fully respect people, you do want to take them seriously. You do want to take them at their word and at their actions. Uh, as it's been said, when someone, someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.

And it just helped me to kind of reframe that as, you know, to critique, to criticize, to not support a group, um, doesn't have to be an act of hatred or oppression. I mean, that's, it obviously could be, but it could likewise be a part of showing respect to anybody and everybody by taking them seriously, taking what they're saying at face value.

And if there's something wrong with it, pointing out what that is. Uh, obviously that can apply to any group, any person, any party. But that was the specific context I thought of it. Well anyway, moving on, today I wanted to touch on another hot button topic. And this is So prevalent, I would say, in the news and the, and the common psyche today in our culture.

And that is the issue of, transgender, or I'm just going to use the term trans ideology because I do feel that there is a pretty robust developing body of thinking rhetoric that is kind of developed around this. And, uh, there's a lot of sensitivity, I think, along the lines of what we've talked about so far in the season, where, uh, obviously trans people have experienced their share or more of harm, misunderstanding, just brutal hatred, um, and or violence through history, uh, as a, as a, uh, Um, and it's one thing to recognize that it's a one thing to have a sensitivity to that and to, uh, advocate for basic human rights of any group.

I think my opinion, what's going on in this, this hot button issue in our culture is, is far, far, far beyond that. Um, it goes much further and that's what I want to kind of hit. Um, and so I was listening or two or reading, so I can't even remember who it was, but somebody was describing the sort of progression over the last many years of the sort of thinking, the sort of talking points or rhetoric around this.

In the last several years, and I thought it was really helpful if I could remember who it was, I would give attribution, but I can't remember who it was or where I heard it, so I'll just, I'll just, mention that I heard it from someone else, but I thought it was really helpful and true, so the language around this has really changed, um, in the last few years and really accelerated as well, and you could think of it like this, it used to be that somebody might say, I identify with, let's say, let's say a man who is drawn towards womanhood or femininity.

And he might say, I identify, uh, with women or identify with women's whatever fashion, aesthetic sense, style, the way they carry themselves, whatever, identify with women or with women's things. Um, and then not too far ago, not too long ago. It sort of shifted from that to, I identify as a woman, and that became sort of a normal way of speaking about this.

I identify as a woman. And so, I identify as a woman is a shift from identify with women. I mean, identify with women is talking about preferences, affinity. Uh, it might, it might hint it more, but it doesn't go fully there. Uh, it leaves a lot of room for what that could mean. Um, and as far as what it means for the listener, it's like, okay, you're telling me something that you identify with, uh, some things you're drawn to, you have preference for, uh, all that's really required of the listener in that case is, uh, okay, I acknowledge that this is something you identify with, you have a preference for.

So it shifts to identify as a woman, uh, and that's different. It's, it's saying, I think of myself, I I'm, I'm paraphrasing, obviously I think of myself It doesn't make any explicit demand of the listener, uh, to concur, uh, but it is going quite a bit further in saying, I, I think of myself as a woman. This is not just a profile of my preferences or things I'm drawn to.

This is, this is actually something in my identity as I see it. And what might be asked of the listener in that case, what might be asked is, Can you acknowledge that I see myself this way? And that's a specific request, so the listener then would have to decide, right? Do I want to acknowledge that this is at least how this person sees themselves this way?

Now the speaker in this hypothetical scenario might go further and say, I, I would prefer it if you would, you also would refer to me in these terms, refer to me as a woman, including using, you know, feminine pronouns, she and her. And then the listener would have to decide, you know, do I, maybe I don't see this person as a woman, a woman.

Maybe I see this person as a man, but I acknowledge that they see themselves as a woman. So if nothing else, out of deference and respect. Do I want to choose to refer to this person with feminine pronouns? And that person has a pretty serious choice to make because then it's like, well, do the words I use to describe people and things, is it to, is it to reflect reality as I see it?

Or, you know, I'm going to put alongside that my desire to be respectful to this person. And, um, Give a lot of weight to the way they see themselves, even if I disagree. And then what happened is, I think this is pretty recent, the language, at least it's commonly used, uh, has shifted from, I identify with women to, to identify as a woman to I am a woman.

That's a pretty recent shift. I'm not saying nobody said that before, three years ago, five years ago. But I wasn't hearing it. Uh, I think, I think for that to be commonplace is a very, very, very new thing. And obviously, I am a woman. So this is, this is a biological, I'm using this kind of conventional terminology, a biological man saying, I am a woman.

Now, this could be post trans surgery. It could be pre trans surgery. It seems like it can be applied in either case. People can say this in either case and do. I am a woman. And the obligation, explicit or implied, on the listener or responder in this case is, You may only respond to me and refer to me as a woman.

Uh, I am a woman. Leaves no room for me. for there to be no sense in which I'm not a woman. So it, it's sort of this very much bigger claim that in essence there is no sense in which I am not a woman. I am a woman by virtue of my inner mental state, my knowledge of my inner state, my declaration of who I am.

It's a, it's a self definition with no room for disagreement or negotiation. And Uh, this is the moment and context we're at culturally now where if somebody says, I am a woman, a biological male says, I am a woman. Um, it's, it's a, it can be akin to a gauntlet being thrown down. Like, I dare you to disagree with me.

And I'm not saying everybody takes that, that, uh, approach, but there are people taking that approach with a fair amount of backing. And it will come out sometimes with a question. Like, do you, uh, do you believe I am a woman? You know, trying to pin the listener down. Or, the more generic question, but with the same kind of import, are, do you believe trans women are women?

And so that is a, that's a gauntlet being thrown down, um, for the person listening and observing and responding that they need to say, In, in order to not be trapped by the trapped question, they need to be able to say yes. It's sort of a shibboleth, a test, acid test of their orthodoxy on this issue, so to speak.

Um, Am I a woman? Are, are trans women women? And, most people, if they don't kind of buy into this whole ideology, it's going to be hard for them to say yes to that. They're going to want to say something like, Well, in what sense, you know, some people might just say no, just flat, no. That's their simple answer.

Other people might say, well, I want to show some deference and respect to this is how you view yourself. But to me, there's clearly at least one sense or maybe multiple senses in which you're not a woman. And so that's sort of this, uh, middle ground. And then of course, some people would just say, yes, their affirmation is in every way.

A trans woman is a woman. There is no sense in which he or she is not a woman. Um, that's a very different thing, right? Because if you're asking that question, or your mentality is such to ask that question whether you're asking it or not, that's different than the first two scenarios because you're not asking someone to acknowledge a personality preference or profile of yours.

You're not asking them even to bend their mental categories, um, and use of language that reflects those mental categories simply out of, um, personal respect and deference to you and your inner state of mind that differs from their use of mental categories. You're essentially saying, you need to have the same mental categories that I have.

You need to have the same categories of meaning that I have with the same definition, um, that I have. And if not, then, then you're in the wrong. That's a very different thing. Uh, than the first two scenarios. I mean, I feel very differently about it. It's a different request. It's a different demand. Uh, and it's a different, it's a different tack.

Uh, I think a lot of times what happens with. You know, when you see these flashpoints about this topic and there's some pushback and people saying, no, I'm not willing to use your same language or categories that you're, you're wanting me to. It seems like the, the common comebacks and backups are one, a request for kindness and courtesy in a sense of, Hey, this is meaningful to me.

This is how I want to be referred to. Can you just do it, you know, because it's, it's has this effect on me, positive or negative, depending on what you say, and that's one tack and the other tack is, and sometimes they can be used together, of course, but the other tack is this existential threat. Like, Hey, this is a, this is an oppressed minority.

This is an at risk group. And so if you don't comply, if you don't concur, And use this language and have these mental categories that this language reflects, you are, in a sense, contributing to their existential threat because these people are suicidal, they want to self harm in large percentages, and if you don't use the right terminology and mental categories, you're just making them even more susceptible.

Essentially, you're, you're almost killing them through your actions or, or choices. Um, and obviously that's a pretty big power move. It has the cover of compassion and it has the cover of kindness and empathy. Um, but when someone is arguing that they need to take over your mental categories and language without making a otherwise solid case just by.

Request for niceness or use of existential threat as a, as a, um, a weapon or an accusation. Um, that's a, that is a serious power move right there. Uh, it's not something that I would bow to. Um, now I don't know that I think of myself as an extremist on this. I, I, I think. To start you we should always start with empathy with listening with compassion That's always a good place to start But if an argument gets made that that's What I perceive as empathy and compassion is the only thing that can be brought into the conversation and nothing else and it overrides any other thought or consideration or or logic or reckoning with reality.

Uh, no, I, I can't agree with that. That's, it's not, that's not, it's not enough to say that the quote affirming thing is always the right thing. That it's the only value that can be upheld or that needs to be upheld at the expense of anything and everything else, every other consideration. And I do think that that's the argument that gets made quite a bit.

I mean, some, some, a different tack on this that I have wrestled with and I'm sure I have more thinking to do on it, but even just trying to reckon with the rhetoric as it's been, as I've heard it from different vantage points over time, it's really hard to piece together in a way that's very consistent.

So with trans specifically, with people, for example, undergoing surgery. Hormonal changes, uh, you know, overriding hormones to make their physical body match what they want it to be like and look like. It's been really hard because the most powerful argument I've heard, and I'm not saying it's convincing, but it is, it's powerful.

It has heft to it, at least, is, well, here's how I feel. I'm very disturbed. I'm like a male. Trapped in a female's body like deep down. I am a male and I know that it's core to my identity It's it's who I am and a very deep fundamental way That's enough to make me undergo these, you know, very Intense surgeries sometimes over a prolonged period of time these intense changes Because deep down it's almost like in my soul.

I am a male I my my soul is male, but I'm in a female body or vice versa, obviously And Um, that's a, that's a, that's an argument that makes you want to listen because you can hear the, of course you can hear the pain that, that this feeling like that could cause the dysphoria, the, the, uh, frustration and the whatever other emotional words you want to put with it.

But you can feel that, um, and then on the other hand, you've got all these people saying. But by the way, there is no such thing as gender. It's a totally a social construct. It's not something you can be at any deep level, fundamental level, because it's just, it's just human made from our culture and the categories are fairly arbitrarily designed.

And then you have people saying something related, but related not the same, but similar with, with sex, biological sex, saying it's not, it's not binary. There is no Uh, male and female specifically, there's just a, there's just a spectrum, you know, and not only that, but it's, uh, you know, how you identify is and can be fluid.

So it might be more in one season of your life and less, it could even change literally day to day. I mean, I've literally heard people say this and it's like, who, who can disagree when it comes to this, this new realm where it's literally just created and defined by the individual and their feelings.

Not correspondent to any external reality. So, so okay, so if, if genders is a construct, biological sex isn't really a thing as a binary, and it's both things are, are fluid and can change, uh, from season to season, day to day, based on your, your feelings, based on your life situation. Then how can you be that thing in your soul?

Like the very way these things are being described, that it's all up for grabs, it can change, no one can define it, there are no categories, all, all that rhetoric argues against that you can really be this thing so deeply in your soul in a way that you've got to make your body match the way that you really are in your soul.

It's really, the whole thing is, to me, does not work together cohesively. Uh, even as a, just as a, as a cohesive, uh, set of thoughts or rhetoric. And so, uh, it's just something to consider, something to think about. I think where all this really, to me, uh, falls apart, and in my opinion, this is really an Emperor's New Clothes type moment, like I, I, I don't, I don't really know.

Where our culture is going with this. Um, but I can tell you this. I'm not gonna just go along with it. And if that means I literally have to leave the culture, I'm gonna leave. I can't, I can't just pretend that I think all this is healthy, wise, reflective of a deeper reality. It's kind of the whole thing is we've reached, I think, something close to the end point.

Um, that we can get with our detachment from any external reality. I heard a humanist say the other day, which I have some respect for what humanists try to do. And I definitely have respect for individual humanists. Um, I think there's some valuable things there, but he was talking about how in, at least in his view, what humanism was trying to do is create, values and self defined them.

And, I understand that impulse, and I, I have nothing against this guy individually, uh, I'm not saying he's not moral or something like that, but to really question what he's saying and what underpins it, or lack thereof, that's the whole thing. If we just create all meaningful Definitions, meaning itself, categories, and values.

Of course, anybody, anywhere can disagree with them in any way that they want and be equally justified as what we come up with. If there's no external reality, if there's no need to correspond to something outside of ourselves, then we are making up every category. Every bit of meaning, every value, and whatever we come up with is subject to infinite.

Argumentation and disagreement, and I don't think that that's reflective of reality. Now I know that the knock for anybody that's a religious person at least is, oh so you just need this crutch so you're just going to invent it out of whatever. Um, I understand the accusation, I understand what's being said, but no, I mean that's just because you need something doesn't mean that you have mentally invented it.

You can need something and the reason you need it is because it does exist. That's an equally viable way of looking at it. Um, in my case, I think, yeah, there, you, you are going to eventually run into major, major problems if you think that you can simply invent uh, values when there is no narrative. There is no inbuilt meaning or purpose.

There is no external reality that you need to correspond to. And I think with this, the, the issues around trans, and I'm not talking about individuals who are trans, who are all worthy of respect, what I'm talking about is the ideology and rhetoric around it, where all need to correspond to anything outside of our own feelings and definitions has been torn away.

Well then there's only one thing left, and it is our feelings. And we can create any definitions any categories any meaning we want Um, nobody can ever say anything meaningful about it or against it Dialogue is fairly meaningless. The only the only Uh speaking you can do i'm not going to call it dialogue because it's not dialogue.

The only speaking you can do Is affirmation? And that's actually I think we're exactly where we are culturally the only thing you can say on the topic Is What falls under the orthodoxy of affirmation, anything that you do or say that cuts against that, that threatens that way of thinking, uh, is, is really perceived as a threat.

And the truth is it is a threat because

it's like if you ignore gravity long enough and you're climbing higher and higher and higher on a ladder, let's say a ladder into space. Something in you is going to tell you that you are, you are doing something unwise. Now, for you to keep going and going, you're going to have to suppress that. You're going to have to pretend that reality and gravity doesn't exist, and that you're not in danger.

Um, but if then some little voice comes along and whispers like, Hey, you're really high. Hey, you know if you fall, something really bad is going to happen to you. You are going to rebel against that voice with everything you have. Because you're doing your best to suppress it Already you have this existential angst because part of you knows That you're simply ignoring reality and I think that's the cultural moment we're in where the level of stridency of the voices The level of you can just sense the existential threat that people feel When they're kind of they're they're tiptoeing way out there on the ice, you know, they're climbing way up high in the ladder They're detached from all reality um You know, the string in the balloon has been cut, man.

The balloon's gone. Um, There's a, there's an angst there. And anybody who's pointing out anything that sounds or feels like, uh, an immovable reality, immovable force, strength, logic, um, external reality, it, it's perceived as a deep, deep threat. Because it takes a lot of work to suppress. Awareness of reality that's external to our us and our feelings, but we're working really hard at that right now So I think that's just one more kind of manifestation of our current civic religion, which is the only two values are Freedom and equality and the only two sins are oppression and inequality Uh, and, and really the only narrative is, is me and my feelings.

That's, there is no overarching narrative. There's just, if those are the only values and those are the only sins, then the only narrative is, is me and what I feel and what I want. And nothing can really impose or, or infringe on that. Not a good place to be. We are going somewhere with this, by the way, still.

I haven't even gotten to The secret that I've been telling you about, the secret that Jesus had, I believe he had something that extends beyond just his unique identity and vocation as, uh, son of God in a very unique sense, but something that is available and accessible to us. Um, so we're going to be getting to that really soon.

All these things are going to be tied together, but right now we're just taking a walking tour of our culture, the hot button points and, and. How understanding that we are looking things, as a culture, we're looking at things through this very reduced, kind of barren, uh, lens, is dictating the outcomes, our positions.

And I think actually all this is leading us somewhere. It, it, not through any, the volition of any one person or even any group, but I, I would say we're being led somewhere. That is, uh, not good. It is scary. It is, um, not, If we knew where we were going, I don't think we would just keep going put it that way.

So I'll keep unpacking that Uh, so we have that to look forward to we have the secret to look forward to and we're going to talk more about unpack And um, so stick with me. We got a few more episodes and i'll see you next time