Guest post: Once you have identified your ingroup
Originally a comment by Bjarte Foshaug on The entitlement of children.
Mostly Cloudy #3
What on earth has happened?
As I keep saying, I think people tend to get involved in various kinds of activism or movements out of a sincere desire to do good (as they see it). But once you have identified your ingroup, other, far less admirable, motives (deference to authority, group conformity, avoiding conflict, keeping the group together, reducing cognitive dissonance, consistency with former acts or statements etc.) gradually come to supplant the original cause, even to the point of actively embracing the polar opposite of everything that got you into activism in the first place.
We see this in the case of feminists who – less than 10 years ago – knew perfectly well (as we can tell by their own words back then) how to tell a biological male from a biological female and identify which biological sex was most disadvantaged by the patriarchy, but have since gone on to deny that biological females even exist as an identifiable group, let alone have any issues worth addressing in their own right. We see it in the case of “LGBT” activists who – once again, less than 10 years ago – used to fight for increased acceptance of same-sex attraction (as opposed to attraction to people who think or feel in certain ways best left unspecified, call themselves by certain names, use certain pronouns etc.), but have since gone on to argue that same-sex attraction is the pinnacle of bigotry and evil. And we see it in the case of anti-racists who used to rage about white people appropriating the struggles of POC, but have since gone on to insist that TRAs – no matter how white – have an absolute monopoly on “non-white” feminism as well as an unlimited right to claim the opinions of POC for themselves whether the latter do in fact hold said opinions or not.
Absolutely correct. It’s related to what I keep saying about the effect of applying a label to oneself, whether that be “atheist”, “feminist”, “Christian”, “liberal”, “conservative”, or whatever. Having adopted the label, one tends to be constrained by it. Whenever it’s time to make a decision, one subconsciously thinks, “I’m an X, and an X would …” (Essentially a WWJD process, but for any given label.)
“…once you have identified your ingroup, other, far less admirable, motives (deference to authority, group conformity, avoiding conflict, keeping the group together, reducing cognitive dissonance, consistency with former acts or statements etc.) gradually come to supplant the original cause..”
I think that might be it. Also, part of the reason is that many (not all) of the people on the left currently embracing this extremist trans ideology, were supporters of Bernie Sanders in the US and Jeremy Corbyn in Britain.
I’ll leave discussions of the rights and wrongs of these gentlemen’s politics for another day, but two things to note are a) supporters of these men tended to form close-knit communities around them such as the DSA and Momentum; and b) there was a lot of hostility to both Sanders and Corbyn from the media and other politicians.
As a result, many of Sanders’ & Corbyn’s supporters developed a “siege mentality”. So when right-wing outlets like the Wall Street Journal or The London Times rang negative stories about trans ideology, puberty blockers, etc., these people, in the “ingroup”, simply dismissed these stories as “more right-wing propaganda” similar to the attacks on the politicians they had passionately supported.
And when leftist outlets like the Guardian or the New Statesman published similar articles about the transgender issue, it was seen as “a stab in the back” (“cognitive dissonance”). These people simply could not understand how anyone advocating for feminism, socialism, radical environmentalism etc, could believe in biological sex, or object to “affirmation only” treatment for children and teenagers with gender dysphoria, etc.
We’ve seen, during the recent controversies over Suzanne Moore and Judith Butler, the enormous pressure these people are putting on the Guardian to fall into line with the extremist trans agenda, and to stop publishing anything that might induce “cognitive dissonance” in the extremist trans ideology faction of the political left.
Hence the *endless* amount of material they produce comparing gender-critical feminism to
ultra-conservatism, theocracy, fascism, and genocide.
https://twitter.com/LaDolceRosa/status/1436583527437504513
Re #2
I think Sanders fandom is a symptom, not a cause. That is, there is a pattern of thinking, as outlined in the guest post here, that leads people to be susceptible to being largely uncritical of charismatic and bold leaders who put forth a strong agenda. The importance of supporting the leader becomes more important than critically evaluating the agenda. It’s distressingly easy to captivate almost any group of people.
Hm, I would also include Warren and Bootyjudge supporters among those who have drunk the trans Kool-aid. The predictive value is probably higher, anyway, since they didn’t get the same sort of crossover support but did get more liberal media support. (If you’ll recall, PBS did an overview of all the Dem primary candidates, and it somehow managed to omit the candidate who was in the lead at the time; i.e., Bernie.) And if the trans movement can count on support anywhere, it’s from liberal media.
Because supporting LGBTQ causes is what liberals do. That’s the in-group. By modus tollens, if you don’t stand in solidarity with our trans brothers and sisters, you’re not a liberal. In fact, you’re probably an alt-right Trump supporter.
Nullius, not all Warren supporters. Some of us liked her for other reasons, and cringed at her embrace of that issue. I think it’s too simplistic to make these assessments, but I do see a lot of crossover in those who are rabid supporters of a candidate and those who are rabid supporters of something like trans ideology.
One thing I noticed about Sanders supporters is that, like Trump supporters, they were more interested in breaking things than in creating or maintaining a functional society. There are a lot of people on the woke left that I also think will never be happy unless they are screaming and ranting about something they don’t like. They are not anyone’s allies because their whole meaning is derived from being where other people are not. And…they insist on acceptance of whatever they say, regardless of who it hurts and how inane it might be.
Nullius #1
Except that, on the face of it, actively opposing any effort to stand up for the rights and interests of biological females in the name of “feminism” or condemning same-sex attraction in the name of the “LGBT” movement seems more analogous to thinking:
“I’m a vegan, and a vegan would eat steak for every meal.”
“I’m a teetotaler, and a teetotaler would down a bottle of whisky every day.”
“I’m a pacifist, and a pacifist would go on a shooting spree.”
Etc. etc.
It’s rather like asking oneself WWJD? and deciding that the answer is to worship Lucifer, blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, and dedicate oneself to a life of debauchery and depravity.
It’s precisely how the “X” mutates into its polar opposite that interests me. I have been reading up on the study of cults and thought reform in an effort to shed some light on the matter, but I find that the light-shedding goes at least as much in the other direction: No wonder cult members can be persuaded to drink the Kool-Aid when even people outside the cult can be so easily persuaded to turn against everything they used to stand for.
As I said, I think tribalism, group conformity, conflict avoidance, and (especially) cognitive dissonance are essential parts of the explanation. Of course, there is also tons of plain old sloppy, bad thinking going on, which I suspect is what you’re getting at. After all it’s still called (“trans-inclusive”, “intersectional”, “sex-positive” etc.) “feminism” even if the content of “feminism” has been fully replaced. It’s still called the “LGBT etc. etc.. [1]” movement, even if it’s now actively hostile to the “LGB” parts. We still use a language of standing up for the rights and interests of “women” and “gay” people, even if these words no longer refer to the same groups of people. But hey, if we’re still using the same words, we must still be talking about the same things, right? It’s bad puns all the way down.
[1] As Graham Linehan puts it, everything after “LGB” in the alphabet soup means “straight”.
Then again, I guess the deeper problem is that no actual thinking is allowed, only the mindless parroting of slogans:
Trans women are women!
Trans men are men!
Non-binary identities are valid!
Four legs good! Two legs bad!
Oh wait, did I get that last one from Animal Farm? Somehow it doesn’t seem quite as vacuous as the other three…
“It’s precisely how the “X” mutates into its polar opposite that interests me. I have been reading up on the study of cults and thought reform in an effort to shed some light on the matter, but I find that the light-shedding goes at least as much in the other direction: No wonder cult members can be persuaded to drink the Kool-Aid when even people outside the cult can be so easily persuaded to turn against everything they used to stand for.”
Bjarte, have you read “The Russia Complex: The British Labour Party and the Soviet Union” by Bill Jones?
There’s a grimly fascinating chapter about how the former anti-fascists of the British Communist Party tied themselves in rhetorical knots praising the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact (to the horror of the rest of the UK left of the time).
Another factor in the trans controversy is the “no debate -you are denying trans people’s existence” factor.
Remember how the trans woman and supporter of gender self-identification, Paris Lees, refused to take part in a BBC debate with another trans woman who was gender critical, Miranda Yardley. Lees said she was ‘not prepared to enter into a fabricated debate about trans people’s right to exist.’
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/2014/08/kellie-maloney-newsnight-and-debate-transgender-community-refused-have
But Miranda Yardley disagreed with Lees’ views, and she still exists! Supporters and opponents of divisive issues such as capital punishment can hold discussions and debates with each other- why can’t supporters of gender self-identification discuss the issue with their opponents too?
The journey into Opposite World (feminism is gender-positive; homosexuality is homogenderality) seems to have been guided by a well-meaning heuristic road map written in analogies. “Support the oppressed instead of the oppressor” lead to transwomen being oppressed by ‘cis’ women the way black women were oppressed by white women. “Self-knowledge and Self-actualization are valued over conformity to the expectations of others” lead to children knowing their own internal sex the way gay people know their own sexual orientation. “Religion doesn’t have moral authority” lead to the religious being wrong about transgenderism in the same way they’re wrong about imposing theocracy.
In my own experience, I noticed that many skeptical and atheist forums did not approach the issue of Gender Identity like they approached pseudoscience or the existence of God, examining the concepts with science and reason and welcoming debate. They approached it more like being in favor of science and reason, and against the cruelty of the arrogant and ignorant. There’s no point in debate. Cut them off, move forward.
A few thoughts:
There are any number of instances where advocates on “both sides” of an issue converge on desired actions.
Racially segregated schools (what the white supremacists want) compared to historically Black colleges;
Sex-segregated schools and classrooms (what the male supremacists want) compared to women’s schools and colleges;
Fully legalized prostitution (put women in their place) versus fully legalized prostitution (empower women in a sex-positive way to choose their line of work);
I’ve known Black people and white people alike who complain about the collection of racial data on business and government forms;
So it wouldn’t surprise me terribly to see someone go from position -> remedy -> opposite position (with same remedy), so long as the remedy rather than its rationale become the main point.
Which became “Four legs ggod! Two legs better!” The trans equivalent of this devolution can be seen in the claim by some trans activists that some TiMs “do womanhood” better than women. Certainly the demand to “center” TiMs in feminism is part of this, and the eagerness of some women to do just that, even moreso.
Perhaps because they have no actual argument, just the slogans? A good slogan gets you out of actually having to back up one’s claims. Casting any and all criticism or opposition as Evil does the same. Here we have a movement that does both, contiuously.
At its core trans activism is appopriative and colonial, starting with language. By allowing the words of their opponents to appear unmediated, untranslated into anti-trans “dog whistles”, it risks showing how anti-woman the trans stance is. Without the veneer of progressive “incusion” and its demands for “support” for the “most oppressed minority ever,” it becomes clear that this is a movement that benefits the interests of white males. By casting discussion as the equivalent of asking a Black person to “debate” a KKK member, or a Jew to “debate” an anti-semite ( despite the fact that their are likely activists amongs BLM and Jewish activist camps who would relish the chance to take a strip off their bigotted opponents), TAs get to use the revulsion that is felt towards racists to shield themselves from the pointed, valid criticism of feminists. If they’re really lucky, the convenor cancels the debate altogether, promising to “do better” in the future.
Bjarte
My family held a memorial service for my dad recently (he died in December and couldn’t have a proper funeral because of COVID). We went for a meal afterwards in what turned out to be quite a noisy restaurant, so I was practically yelling to my brother’s partner as we were discussing this and bellowed “IT MEANS STRAIGHT. NON-BINARY MEANS STRAIGHT” at the exact moment everyone in the restaurant stopped talking all at once.
Fortunately, there are probably few violent gender identity extremists in rural North Yorkshire, so I think I got away with it.
latsot
Sorry for you loss.
Re. your accidental “outing”, I can imagine that must have been pretty awkward. Then again, once the cat is out of the bag, I think many people experience a great sense of relief at no longer having to worry about being “found out”, knowing who their real friends are etc.
I am actually looking for the best way of outing myself to my social circle, at least in part for that exact reason (another reason would be encouraging others to do the same, letting others who can see the Emperor’s nudity know that it’s not just them etc.). If someone is just acting as my friend by mistake – because they’re confusing me for someone I’m not and would throw me under the bus the moment they discovered their mistake – I very much prefer to know. I am certainly not under the impression that Ophelia sees it as a great loss to no longer count PZ among her friends.
Of course, I am already writing here under my own name, so there’s already a risk that this whole explosive mix might blow up in my face at any moment…
Mostly Cloudy #8
I haven’t read that, but sounds interesting. Thank you.
Bjarte,
I wouldn’t be able to not talk about this stuff with my meat friends, anyone who matters already knows my views. On pretty much everything, really. I don’t talk all that much, but I’m not shy about my opinions when I feel there’s an injustice or… well, whenever anything pisses me off, really.
Outing myself was never a choice, it was always inevitable.
It was always inevitable for me too, but I think not so much because of the injustice as because of the ever-increasing nonsensicality, The injustice should be the trump card but for me the irritation of the nonsensicality is almost physical in its discomfort. Like itching. I just couldn’t stomach the bullshit one more second.
That comes under the pissing me off proviso.
Ok there’s your title, now all you have to do is write it.
It sounds like a John Grisham novel.
Well, for better or worse, the cat is out of the bag. Bring it on.