Frank, your approach to Doriane Coleman was lazy and credulous. Why are you so ready to believe that anyone critical of Coleman's work must be a radical extremist when you admit you don't know what the opposing arguments are? When Coleman claims trans activists tried to cancel her, you condemn them as idiots whose tactics undermine their own cause, and then you lament that these "idiots" don't know how to engage in civil discourse, even as you acknowledge that you don't know their names, and you don't understand their concerns, most likely because you haven't read them. Their names and their writing are not hard to find. But evidently you didn't do even minimal background research on Coleman and her critics before offering her an open mic and praising her book. Instead of doing your own research, you ask Coleman to spoon feed you some sources for further reading. And if anyone listening should ever question your intentions, well, you reassure yourself and your listeners that there can be no doubt of your good will, because, after all, you have friends who are trans. How embarrassing! Frank, you say you want to be seen as a fair- and open-minded thinker, but you don't seem to be putting in the work.
No, I will not. And that is because the point I raised is not about the opposing arguments, it’s about how Frank Schaeffer has leapt in with an enthusiastic endorsement for Doriane Coleman and her positions without apparently having taken even a cursory glance at alternative perspectives on the issues. Worse, he denigrates Coleman’s critics and devalues their arguments, while acknowledging that he doesn’t know who they are or what they believe.
And while I’m at it, I’d like to further ask how, after reading a single book, Frank, a septuagenarian, heterosexual, white male feels so comfortable jumping into a contentious, ongoing conversation that primarily affects cis women and trans women. This is a long running, complex discussion, and many participants engaged with it have felt their own views shift and evolve over the course of years and decades of developing study, debate and life experience. But Frank, with no first-hand experience or skin in the game, has strong words for people he can’t even name. The arrogance is stunning, and Frank’s insulting language as he accuses others of failing to engage in “civil discourse” while exalting himself as some sort of benevolent cisgender white knight of neutral moral objectivity takes it from merely pathetic to acutely galling.
Personally, I find Frank’s perspectives as a former evangelical on evangelical extremism fascinating, but his engagement with transgender topics leaves me seriously questioning his claims of good will toward the community. I don’t read his concern as faked or cynical, but it comes across, to me at least, as profoundly unaware of its own deeply internalized cisnormativity and transphobia.
Completely disagree that Frank has no skin in the game --- he's a vocal advocate for women and him being a "white male" does not automatically preclude him being able to to speak on this or other similar issues. This line of argument is weak at best and exhausting: wielded all of the time by those who wish to shut down this specific discussion and prohibit a more nuanced one. The frequency of this angle being utilized to prevent nuanced discussion almost makes you wonder if those utilizing have something to hide due to almost universally being unable to to stand up to these discussions.
Re-read this several times to yourself:
A nuanced topic deserves and warrants a nuanced discussion.
ANYONE is allowed to speak on this---which is why the 1st Amendment is the cornerstone of American democracy. I recommend you go re-read it several times. You don't get to tell people they're not allowed to talk about this or any other specific subject--- to do so smacks of censorship and borders on fascism.
There is a complete lack of mainstream civil discourse within the discussion of sex and gender---with the minute a different point of view is brought up the mainstream proponents of trans rights shut the conversation decrying "suicide risk" and "transphobia."
"Gender" itself is a social construct -- gender is not a cold, hard reality like biological sex. Gender is a concept (NOT a fact) CREATED within the social practices of societies with no gender being a "universal constant." In the late 20th century the "gender" of "woman" successfully expanded in liberal society to include "trans women," whereas this additional definition of gender have not been accepted by mainstream society as a whole. Unfortunately, this was a reality made extremely clear by the 2024 disastrous election results.
Additionally, the insisted attachment of "cis women" (most of which will never call themselves "cis") and trans women as "types of women" is an argument the vast majority of Western society does not hold and likely never will. It is presumptive---and offensive to some--to assume this is "given." As a biological woman, aside from the harmful stereotypes and expectations attached to "girl" and "women" (all of which I completely reject) I do not by default have anything in common with trans women and I see no "shared experience" between the two categories of "women."
As a biological female (and woman), if am oppressed it is explicitly tied to my biology. Will I be denied access to an abortion? Will I be denied access to healthcare in pregnancy? If I become a mother, will I will live in a society that does not support women who bear children? The differentiator between male and women is fundamentally a reproductive one --- I do not share this differentiator with trans women. I also do not "identify" as a woman: I am not allowed to be anything else but a woman due to my own biology and the risks that are imposes on me in a world dominated by males (and while trans women absolutely do have risks from patriarchy, they are not the same risks).
Additionally, there is a complete moratorium of discussion of WHY trans women become trans women and it is not exclusively due to "gender dysphoria" which is a real and genuine disorder. Identifying as a trans women can also be caused autogynophelia among other disorders, but of course that cannot be discussed.
I am 100% an advocate for medical rights, employment rights, housing rights, and civil rights for trans women and trans men. However, to insist on the constant "equation" of trans women and "cis women" of being both "women" (What is women, if "gender identity" is an amorphous "feeling" one simply has) is disingenuous at best, and dangerous at worse in a legal capacity for biological women and the legal protections they truly require to be recognized for their BIOLOGICAL sex from which they experience constant risk.
Biological women are not 2nd class citizens and do not exist to "affirm" the identity of trans women. This is what this has turned into at this point---because if you start to probe further much of the argument tends to unravel and cannot stand on its own two feet without the validity of another group attached to it.
The only common sense I've found in the transgender community is among old school transvestites who reject much of this Orwellian logic which refuses to be grounded in a common reality amongst others.
Consider all of this---because it was a huge contributing factor to the 2024 election outcome despite what criticism the Democrats have shut down tied to it. People need to acknowledge this or 2026 and 2028 will also be losing years: and what will you do then? I'm not sure what you'll have left and I am the last person to want that for anyone.
You have made this discussion much more complicated than it needs to be. Everyone should have rights, regardless of their traits. Being a transgender bully, bullying on behalf of a cause, gaslighting, spreading misinformation, blackmailing, or extorting others, even if it is done to further the cause, is wrong. Period.
Frank, your approach to Doriane Coleman was lazy and credulous. Why are you so ready to believe that anyone critical of Coleman's work must be a radical extremist when you admit you don't know what the opposing arguments are? When Coleman claims trans activists tried to cancel her, you condemn them as idiots whose tactics undermine their own cause, and then you lament that these "idiots" don't know how to engage in civil discourse, even as you acknowledge that you don't know their names, and you don't understand their concerns, most likely because you haven't read them. Their names and their writing are not hard to find. But evidently you didn't do even minimal background research on Coleman and her critics before offering her an open mic and praising her book. Instead of doing your own research, you ask Coleman to spoon feed you some sources for further reading. And if anyone listening should ever question your intentions, well, you reassure yourself and your listeners that there can be no doubt of your good will, because, after all, you have friends who are trans. How embarrassing! Frank, you say you want to be seen as a fair- and open-minded thinker, but you don't seem to be putting in the work.
Would you care to share an example of an opposing argument?
No, I will not. And that is because the point I raised is not about the opposing arguments, it’s about how Frank Schaeffer has leapt in with an enthusiastic endorsement for Doriane Coleman and her positions without apparently having taken even a cursory glance at alternative perspectives on the issues. Worse, he denigrates Coleman’s critics and devalues their arguments, while acknowledging that he doesn’t know who they are or what they believe.
And while I’m at it, I’d like to further ask how, after reading a single book, Frank, a septuagenarian, heterosexual, white male feels so comfortable jumping into a contentious, ongoing conversation that primarily affects cis women and trans women. This is a long running, complex discussion, and many participants engaged with it have felt their own views shift and evolve over the course of years and decades of developing study, debate and life experience. But Frank, with no first-hand experience or skin in the game, has strong words for people he can’t even name. The arrogance is stunning, and Frank’s insulting language as he accuses others of failing to engage in “civil discourse” while exalting himself as some sort of benevolent cisgender white knight of neutral moral objectivity takes it from merely pathetic to acutely galling.
Personally, I find Frank’s perspectives as a former evangelical on evangelical extremism fascinating, but his engagement with transgender topics leaves me seriously questioning his claims of good will toward the community. I don’t read his concern as faked or cynical, but it comes across, to me at least, as profoundly unaware of its own deeply internalized cisnormativity and transphobia.
Completely disagree that Frank has no skin in the game --- he's a vocal advocate for women and him being a "white male" does not automatically preclude him being able to to speak on this or other similar issues. This line of argument is weak at best and exhausting: wielded all of the time by those who wish to shut down this specific discussion and prohibit a more nuanced one. The frequency of this angle being utilized to prevent nuanced discussion almost makes you wonder if those utilizing have something to hide due to almost universally being unable to to stand up to these discussions.
Re-read this several times to yourself:
A nuanced topic deserves and warrants a nuanced discussion.
ANYONE is allowed to speak on this---which is why the 1st Amendment is the cornerstone of American democracy. I recommend you go re-read it several times. You don't get to tell people they're not allowed to talk about this or any other specific subject--- to do so smacks of censorship and borders on fascism.
There is a complete lack of mainstream civil discourse within the discussion of sex and gender---with the minute a different point of view is brought up the mainstream proponents of trans rights shut the conversation decrying "suicide risk" and "transphobia."
"Gender" itself is a social construct -- gender is not a cold, hard reality like biological sex. Gender is a concept (NOT a fact) CREATED within the social practices of societies with no gender being a "universal constant." In the late 20th century the "gender" of "woman" successfully expanded in liberal society to include "trans women," whereas this additional definition of gender have not been accepted by mainstream society as a whole. Unfortunately, this was a reality made extremely clear by the 2024 disastrous election results.
Additionally, the insisted attachment of "cis women" (most of which will never call themselves "cis") and trans women as "types of women" is an argument the vast majority of Western society does not hold and likely never will. It is presumptive---and offensive to some--to assume this is "given." As a biological woman, aside from the harmful stereotypes and expectations attached to "girl" and "women" (all of which I completely reject) I do not by default have anything in common with trans women and I see no "shared experience" between the two categories of "women."
As a biological female (and woman), if am oppressed it is explicitly tied to my biology. Will I be denied access to an abortion? Will I be denied access to healthcare in pregnancy? If I become a mother, will I will live in a society that does not support women who bear children? The differentiator between male and women is fundamentally a reproductive one --- I do not share this differentiator with trans women. I also do not "identify" as a woman: I am not allowed to be anything else but a woman due to my own biology and the risks that are imposes on me in a world dominated by males (and while trans women absolutely do have risks from patriarchy, they are not the same risks).
Additionally, there is a complete moratorium of discussion of WHY trans women become trans women and it is not exclusively due to "gender dysphoria" which is a real and genuine disorder. Identifying as a trans women can also be caused autogynophelia among other disorders, but of course that cannot be discussed.
I am 100% an advocate for medical rights, employment rights, housing rights, and civil rights for trans women and trans men. However, to insist on the constant "equation" of trans women and "cis women" of being both "women" (What is women, if "gender identity" is an amorphous "feeling" one simply has) is disingenuous at best, and dangerous at worse in a legal capacity for biological women and the legal protections they truly require to be recognized for their BIOLOGICAL sex from which they experience constant risk.
Biological women are not 2nd class citizens and do not exist to "affirm" the identity of trans women. This is what this has turned into at this point---because if you start to probe further much of the argument tends to unravel and cannot stand on its own two feet without the validity of another group attached to it.
The only common sense I've found in the transgender community is among old school transvestites who reject much of this Orwellian logic which refuses to be grounded in a common reality amongst others.
Consider all of this---because it was a huge contributing factor to the 2024 election outcome despite what criticism the Democrats have shut down tied to it. People need to acknowledge this or 2026 and 2028 will also be losing years: and what will you do then? I'm not sure what you'll have left and I am the last person to want that for anyone.
You have made this discussion much more complicated than it needs to be. Everyone should have rights, regardless of their traits. Being a transgender bully, bullying on behalf of a cause, gaslighting, spreading misinformation, blackmailing, or extorting others, even if it is done to further the cause, is wrong. Period.
Great podcast. So glad to have this conversation 😌 about saving ourselves. Thank you.