Illiberals

Definition of "Illiberal" (aggregated by Grok):

"Illiberal" is an adjective that primarily means not liberal, especially in a political sense where it describes attitudes or systems opposed to principles of liberalism, such as restricting individual rights, freedoms, or democratic norms.

merriam-webster.com

It can also refer to being narrow-minded, intolerant, or bigoted about cherished opinions or values.

vocabulary.com +1

In older or literary contexts, it might mean ungenerous, stingy, or lacking in culture and refinement.

dictionary.com

The term is often used today to describe "illiberal democracies," which are governments that maintain the appearance of democracy while suppressing opposition or civil liberties.

en.wikipedia.org

With that definition in hand, let me say:

I do not oppose Women. I oppose Illiberal Women.

I do not oppose Men. I oppose Illiberal Men.

I do not oppose LGBTQIA+ people. I oppose Illiberal LGBTQIA+ people.

I do not oppose Muslim people. I oppose Illiberal Muslim people.

I do not oppose Asian people. I oppose Illiberal Asian people.

I do not oppose White people. I oppose Illiberal Muslim people.

I do not oppose Black people. I oppose Illiberal Black people.

Etc, etc. Maybe this is a long-winded way of expressing what MLK said so eloquently: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Continue ReadingIlliberals

Jimmy Kimmel’s Litmus Test

Bill Maher (to Adam Corolla):

Jimmy Kimmel, you know he's very mad at me, and I know you're close to him. I help you tell him that, you know I'm sorry that you know he they got bent out of shape. I don't think I did anything wrong. We can have disagreements. I agree you and I don't agree on everything. Look at this clash now, and yet we're cool (Bill Maher and Adam Corolla), like the Republicans are always.

This is the difference between the right and the left. It bugs me so much. My tribe is supposed to be the left, but these are the people who just can't talk to you unless you're exactly there, whereas the Republicans, they always fucking come to my show. John Kennedy from Louisiana, right? was on last week, took his beating like a man, like they all do, and we came across lovingly and smilingly and happily. And we can disagree when you and I aren't always completely on the same page, although we're very close because we're both smart guys. But like, I just don't get that from Jimmy. I'm sorry. Like, I think he is one of the nicest guys. I did a mea culpa when we exchanged emails, not about what he was complaining about, but just saying, like, you know, sometimes I am a little brash about me when they compare me with the other late night guys.

And I'm not like, you guys. I'm not. You could all exchange your monologs, all of you, and no one would know the difference in tone, okay? Whereas me? I'm not there. I don't just buy into the left wing bullshit, and I never stop making fun of the right wing bullshit at all right? If that's not good enough for you, then I think you're the asshole. And I don't think Jimmy is an asshole. No, I think he's a great guy. And it bugs me . . .

Jimmy Kimmel is an excellent proxy for what has happened to many people on the Left. I'm not referring to all people who lean Left, but a significant sub-set. I know many of them. I've been de-friended by more than a few. This subset utilizes a litmus test. If you don't check all of their boxes, they see you as the enemy, as a republican, as a nazi, as a threat.  But time for a reality check: All people disagree with all other people on at least some things and, usually, many topics. It is fantasy to assume that any two people align on every topic and sub-topic of the day. Emphasis on sub-topic here.  Immigration, transgender, foreign policy, public assistance, race relations, social justice and every other "topic" is actually a big complex basket of subtopics.  Every one of these subtopics invites nuanced conversations involving minor or major disagreements.

Take for instance, the big basket of topics falling under the label of "transgender." As I have written often, I think every adult should be allowed to do anything they want with their own body and they must be respected, honored and invited to associate with any other person and to fall in love with anyone they choose. Many people on the Left , however, demand absolute obeisance, telling you that if you don't chant exactly like they do, in unison, exactly when and where they chant, you must be kicked out of the friendship. There are many important sub-issues to transgender that should be considered individually. For instance, A) Whether society should change its language to accommodate the alleged (and perhaps real) pain of other people B) whether people who identify as transgender should be treated equally under the law, C) whether it is OK for grade school math teachers to talk about sex with students without their parents' knowledge and consent, D) whether confused children and adolescents should be subjected to surgeries (including mastectomies), "puberty blockers" and cross-sex hormones that leave them permanently disfigured and/or sterile, E) Whether a minor can meaningfully consent to permanent changes to their bodies that render them sterile, F) The extent and type of psychological counseling a minor should undergo before being allowed to engage in transgender surgeries and drugs, G) the extent to which social contagion accounted for the rise (and more recently the fall) in minors declaring that they are "transgender."  Whether biological males should be allowed to compete in women's sports, H) whether it is biologically true that trans women are women, I) whether it is OK for a state government to take children away from their parents when state employees disagree with parents on transgender issues, J) Should males be imprisoned along with women, even though rapes and pregnancies are now being reported in those prisons (see here)? K) Whether "LGBTQIA+" is a meaningful descriptor for a a singular community, given the the inherent conflict among those referred to by the letters?  I could go on and on.

There are many other sub-issues to "transgender" topic that I could list. For instance, J.K. Rowling has listed a dozen of these sub-issues in her Sept 1, 2025 post on X. I would bet that many people who lean Left would agree with Rowling on many or most of the issues she lists. Yet she has bee labeled a "terf" and threatened with death on many occasions.

The way the topic of "transgender" splinters into countless sub-issues is true of every political and social issue. Anyone being honest knows that, as a country, we face hundreds, potentially thousands, of sub-issues.

This much is indisputable: Every person disagrees with every other person on many of the countless sub-issues of the day.  It is impossible for any person to lack any disagreement on some of the sub-issues of the day even with their closest and most loyal friends.

During the Great Awokening, we were falsely convinced that when a friend disagreed with us about an issue or sub-issue it was a personal attack, not a mere disagreement. We started disparaging maxims like "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." And this one: "To each his own."  The need to express disagreement is embedded in the Constitutional foundation of the United States. That is why our Founders have a brilliantly devised set of checks and balances for resolving or compromising our inevitable differences.

Anyone currently claiming that they have friends who completely agree with them is not talking about someone they really know.  They are not talking about actual friends. They are referring to a relationship steeped in dishonesty, based on fear of speaking openly.

I challenge anyone reading this to ask themselves this question: Am I willing to keep loving and engaging freely with friends who disagree with me on some topics and sub-topics? If not, you don't have real friends. Instead, you are starring in your own Truman Show, self-imprisoned in a social cage.

Luckily, you've got the key to you own liberation. [More ...]

Continue ReadingJimmy Kimmel’s Litmus Test

New Position on Transgender Surgeries by the AMA and ASPS

It has long been my position that adults can and should be able to do anything they want with their own bodies. With exceptions that would need to be extraordinary, rare and carefully considered in light of a detailed psychological analysis, I have simultaneously opposed irreversible transgender medical surgeries and injections done to minors that will make them sterile, prevent them from ever achieving orgasm and a host of other harmful physical outcomes. This is my position even if these procedures are supposedly done with the "consent" of minors (who are prohibited by age from getting a tattoo or voting).

In light of new evidence of the dangers of these surgeries, two major medical organizations have now voiced their concerns.

Nicolas Hauser's article is titled "Major Medical Organizations Retreat on Irreversible Gender Surgeries for Minors: The American Medical Association and the American Society of Plastic Surgeons move to defer irreversible gender surgeries in minors days after $2 million malpractice verdict for teen detransitioner." Excerpt:

This week, the American Medical Association (AMA) endorsed delaying gender-affirming surgeries until adulthood, just one day after the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) recommended postponing breast/chest, genital, and facial surgeries until at least age 19. While framed as recommendations rather than binding clinical guidelines, the signal is unmistakable: irreversible surgical alteration of minors is facing growing resistance.

Continue ReadingNew Position on Transgender Surgeries by the AMA and ASPS

Steve Stewart-Williams explains his aversion to the term “Gender.”

Steve Stewart-Williams explains "Why I'm not a Fan of Gender." Excerpt from his upcoming bok, "A Billion Years of Sex Differences":

Many social scientists draw a distinction between sex and gender where, roughly speaking, sex refers to biological aspects of female and male, and gender refers to social aspects. ... I’m not a fan of the concept of gender, which I think confuses more than it enlightens.

There are several reasons for this. The first is that the term has multiple meanings. Sometimes gender refers to female–male differences that are (supposedly) shaped by nurture rather than nature; sometimes it refers to masculinity and femininity; sometimes it refers to psychological profiles that are more common in one sex than the other; sometimes it refers to widely held stereotypes of the sexes; sometimes it refers to the roles that society provides for females and males; sometimes it refers to people’s gender identity (their sense of themselves as a boy or a girl or a man or a woman); and sometimes it’s just a polite synonym for sex: a term that makes it clear that you’re talking about biological sex rather than the fun kind of sex. The profusion of partially overlapping meanings makes it difficult to know what people using the term are actually talking about. It’s like trying to juggle jelly.

A second reason I prefer not to partake of gender is that, even if we could agree on a definition, most of those on offer are profoundly flawed. Take, for example, the idea that gender refers to female–male differences due to nurture rather than nature. An initial problem is that this is invariably assumed rather than demonstrated; indeed, describing a female–male difference as a gender difference often seems to be a way to settle the nature–nurture issue by definitional stipulation rather than arguments and evidence. . . .

Other definitions of gender face similar problems. Consider, for example, the idea that gender refers to psychological profiles loosely linked to sex: Men tend to be stoic and assertive, for instance, whereas women tend to be caring and emotional. This definition is assumed by people who argue that there are multiple distinct genders, rather than just the two vanilla options of man and woman. Again, this doesn’t strike me as a useful way to construe things. The problem is that it involves imposing categories – even if more than just two – on what is actually continuous psychological variation. No two human beings have exactly the same psychological profiles, so the logical endpoint of this approach is that there are as many genders as there are human beings – and we’re really just talking about personality.

I've subscribed to Steve's excellent Substack for the past year and highly recommend it.

Continue ReadingSteve Stewart-Williams explains his aversion to the term “Gender.”