Self-Imploding Woke-Permeated Organizations

Can Woke people even get along with each other? Apparently not. Aaron Sibarium reports on "Women Against Abuse." 

"One of the largest domestic violence groups in the United States offered to pay "BIPOC" employees more than white ones; asked white staffers to sign a statement affirming their innate racism; and discouraged black abuse victims from calling the cops."

There are many more examples. Woke workplaces tend to destroy the ability to do meaningful work. A recent example is the meltdown at The Washington Post, featuring Felicia Sonmez. Here's what tends to happen when social justice warriors invade the workplace, as reported by Ricki Schlott.  And if you'd like a lot more example of woeness destroying morale, check out this article by Ryan Grimm at The Intercept:

ELEPHANT IN THE ZOOM: Meltdowns Have Brought Progressive Advocacy Groups to a Standstill at a Critical Moment in World History. Here is an excerpt:

A Prism reporter reached a widely respected Guttmacher board member, Pamela Merritt, a Black woman and a leading reproductive justice activist, while the Supreme Court oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization were going on last December, a year and a half after the Floyd meeting. She offered the most delicate rebuttal of the staff complaints possible.

“I have been in this movement space long enough to respect how people choose to describe their personal experience and validate that experience, even if I don’t necessarily agree that that’s what they experienced,” Merritt said. “It seems like there’s a conflation between not reaching the conclusion that people want and not doing due diligence on the allegations, which simply is not true.” Boonstra did not respond to a request to talk from either Prism or The Intercept.

The six months since then have only seen a ratcheting up of the tension, with more internal disputes spilling into public and amplified by a well-funded, anonymous operation called ReproJobs, whose Twitter and Instagram feeds have pounded away at the organization’s management. “If your reproductive justice organization isn’t Black and brown it’s white supremacy in heels co-opting a WOC movement,” blared a typical missive submitted to and republished on one of its Instagram stories. The news, in May 2022, that Roe v. Wade would almost certainly be overturned did nothing to temper the raging battle. (ReproJobs told The Intercept its current budget is around $275,000.)

That the institute has spent the course of the Biden administration paralyzed makes it typical of not just the abortion rights community — Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and other reproductive health organizations had similarly been locked in knock-down, drag-out fights between competing factions of their organizations, most often breaking down along staff-versus-management lines. It’s also true of the progressive advocacy space across the board, which has, more or less, effectively ceased to function. The Sierra Club, Demos, the American Civil Liberties Union, Color of Change, the Movement for Black Lives, Human Rights Campaign, Time’s Up, the Sunrise Movement, and many other organizations have seen wrenching and debilitating turmoil in the past couple years.

In fact, it’s hard to find a Washington-based progressive organization that hasn’t been in tumult, or isn’t currently in tumult. It even reached the National Audubon Society . . .

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingSelf-Imploding Woke-Permeated Organizations

Why it is Irresponsible to Claim that Failing to Affirm Young Adults Who Seek Transgender Treatment Causes Suicide

When I have questioned the allegedly urgent need for thousands of teenagers to permanently alter their bodies through surgery and to become lifelong sterile hormone-injecting patients, I have heard this response: "They need to be affirmed or else they will commit suicide." It has always struck me as a bizarre argument, in that this simplistic approach urges that therapists cease acting as real-life therapists (by ignoring alternate potential causes for the "transgender" issues) and that these therapists serve merely as rubber stamps. Equally strange, many of those who dare to question the trans narrative have been shut down and fired. See here and here and here. Trans Right Activists (TRA's) proudly violate the sage advice of John Stuart Mill and Karl Popper, who urge us to vigorously question all claims. They also violate Jonathan Rauch's critically important advice from his excellent book, The Constitution of Knowledge (these excerpts at pp 88-89):

[L]iberal science’s distinctive qualities derive from two core rules, and that any public conversation which obeys those two rules will display the distinguishing characteristics of liberal science. The rules are

  1. The fallibilist rule: Ho one gets the final say. You may claim that a statement is established as knowledge only if it can be debunked, in principle, and only insofar as it withstands attempts to debunk it. That is, you are entitled to claim that a statement is objectively true only insofar as it is both checkable and has stood up to checking, and not otherwise. In practice, of course, determining whether a particular statement stands up to checking is sometimes hard, and we have to argue about it. But what counts is the way the rule directs us to behave: you must assume your own and everyone else’s fallibility and you must hunt for your own and others’ errors, even if you are confident you are right. Otherwise, you are not reality-based, [and]
  2. The empirical rule: No one has personal authority. You may claim that a statement has been established as knowledge only insofar as the method used to check it gives the same result regardless of the identity of the checker, and regardless of the source of the statement. Whatever you do to check a proposition must be something that anyone can do, at least in principle, and get the same result. Also, no one proposing a hypothesis gets a free pass simply because of who she is or what group she belongs to. Who you are does not count; the rules apply to everybody and persons are interchangeable. If your method is valid only for you or your affinity group or people who believe as you do, then you are not reality-based.

Leor Sapir has examined this alleged connection between denial of affirmative care and suicide. Here is an excerpt from his article, "Pediatric Gender Medicine and the Moral Panic Over Suicide Hyperbolic rhetoric about suicide rates may do more to increase suicide than prevent it":

The affirm-or-suicide mantra has become the central strategy of contemporary transgender activism, and at times it would seem that activists have little else in their rhetorical arsenal. Federal courts have used it to impose new policies on schools under Title IX. When Florida passed the Parental Rights in Education Act—a law that limits classroom discussion of gender identity and sexual orientation to “age appropriate” circumstances and that requires schools to notify parents when their children are being “socially transitioned” to the opposite gender—Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg agreed with his husband Chasten that it would “kill kids.” Florida’s law was in response to, among other things, books like Gender Queer: A Memoir, which contains graphic depictions of oral sex, appearing on school library shelves. The book’s “non-binary” author, Maia Kobabe, countered that her book’s presence in libraries was “life-saving.”

A few weeks later, transgender Assistant Secretary for Health and Human Services Rachel Levine used the same word to justify the federal government’s support for “gender affirming” interventions. Neither Levine nor President Biden, who has given his own imprimatur to the controversial practice, seemed to care much that Europe’s most progressive welfare states have been moving in the opposite direction, placing strict limitations on the use of puberty blockers to treat adolescents in distress presumably because of their “gender.” Scandinavians are not indifferent to teen suicide. Rather, they have examined the evidence behind the affirm-or-suicide claim and have found it wanting.

Despite the unwaveringly confident manner in which these claims are often asserted, there is no good evidence that failing to “affirm” minors in their “gender identity” will increase the likelihood of them committing suicide. As I discuss below, that claim is based on a small handful of deeply flawed studies that, at most, find loose correlations between “affirming” interventions and improved mental health. Some find no reduction of suicide at all, and a new study claims to find that puberty blockers actually increase the risk of suicide.

Not only is the empirical basis for the affirm-or-suicide mantra shoddy at best, but its dissemination is also profoundly irresponsible. Such extreme rhetoric limits our ability to better understand and respond to mental health problems in vulnerable youth, and may itself contribute to the real and documented phenomenon of “suicide contagion.”

What is wrong with the studies upon which activists rely to claim that failing to affirm will cause suicide?

Firstly, surveys of TIY suicidality rely on self-report and do very little to vet respondents when they say they “attempted” suicide. Secondly, studies purporting to show that TIY are at elevated risk of suicide tend to compare suicide rates in TIY with rates in non-TIY—a deeply misleading comparison. This is because TYI, especially among the new clinical cohort of “rapid onset gender dysphoria” (ROGD) teenagers, exhibit extraordinarily high rates of mental health problems (psychological co-morbidities) quite apart from their gender-related distress.

Continue ReadingWhy it is Irresponsible to Claim that Failing to Affirm Young Adults Who Seek Transgender Treatment Causes Suicide

America’s Crumbling Institutions and Their Discontents

America's Institutions are crumbling. We can see it all around us, according to this recent Gallop poll:

Jonathan Haidt comments on one of the main causes of institutional decay: The failure of institutions to nurture and encourage free and vigorous speech resulting in the lack of viewpoint diversity:

America’s institutions were once strong, he says.

“By the mid to late 20th century, America had the best epistemic institutions in the world, epistemic meaning institutions that generate knowledge, like universities, research institutes, intelligence agencies.

“Social media comes in and makes us afraid of dissent. Because if you tell a joke, if you raise a question, if you even so much as tweet, a link to a study, an academic study, that questions an orthodoxy about race, or gender, you can be fired for that.

“When critics go silent, the institution gets stupid.”

Continue ReadingAmerica’s Crumbling Institutions and Their Discontents

The Overton Window Closes at Indiana School District

An Indiana Public School K-12 District has announced penalties for micro-aggressions. These penalties include suspensions and expulsions for saying the word "guys" and asking people where they are from. Greg Lukianoff of FIRE discusses with Megyn Kelly.

Continue ReadingThe Overton Window Closes at Indiana School District

FAIR Sends Letter of Inquiry to University of Colorado at Denver

FAIR is the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism. FAIR often speaks up when organizations exhibit illiberal tendencies, even when this is done with good intentions. A recent example, a letter FAIR sent to the University of Colorado. Here's an excerpt from FAIR's letter of concern:

To summarize the information provided to FAIR: The University is emphasizing a particular ideological viewpoint and concomitant intolerance of dissenting viewpoints. It has held events where individuals are physically segregated based on skin color. A chilling effect has resulted on campus, leaving some employees and students feeling they cannot express their beliefs without fear of retribution.

We have significant concerns if that information is accurate. As an advocate for pro-human antiracism, FAIR respects educators who undertake efforts to create positive change and greater fairness. There can be no question of past and present injustices committed in this nation. However, institutional policies and practices that attempt to remedy prejudice should not themselves further prejudice or intolerance. It is unconstitutional for a public institution to segregate individuals by skin color, even if the purpose is benign. Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 506 (2005). Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 22 (1948); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 908 (1996).

Continue ReadingFAIR Sends Letter of Inquiry to University of Colorado at Denver