For better or worse, the principle works in the obverse as well. For now, we no longer believe in the "right" to own slaves,for example. But there has been a general swing toward the individual, unlimited right to bear arms, and the incomplete human embryo or fetus that is unable to survive outside the womb is accorded greater rights than its host. No straight lines to a more just society exist. Was MLK, Jr. wrong?
I like this post a lot, and I think societies would benefit from understanding it. For better or worse, there is a finite amount of change that an individual or society can endure over some duration of time. If the strategy for change is that "steady breeze", and acceptance of the speed of change, I think that in general things will actually change faster. Of course there are always exceptions. But when people take hard lines and treat it as if it is a fight that must be entirely won right now, rather than a "steady breeze" of changing minds, minds will resist and this leads to slower change (and a more negative environment). Having said that, part of the steady breeze can be small legal changes, that then have time to be accepted, which leads to the next small change, etc. (Note: I have my own range of change acceptance, and certainly do not believe that all change is in a positive direction. So the steady breeze may often slow, and ultimately filter out many calls-for-change that probably should be filtered out, in my opinion.)
For something to be a right for all, it cannot impose on the rights of others. There was a reason women's sports were created and a reason bathrooms are segregated by sex. There's also a reason why we don't see women crossing over to compete with men. People have the right to dress and identify as they please, but they do not get to force that on others and invade their safe spaces.
I’m not sure it works like that. For example the defender of trans rights might argue that you are forcing them to live in your paradigm. Your argument is not really any different than those who used to say that gay men can’t be in sports or the military. Before that we were told it would impose on the rights of white people to force them to be on sports teams and shower with people of color.
Now I may not be the best person to make this argument. I’m a pretty boring straight white dude. I think that part of Dr. Brands’ point is that not only do people need to chsnge hearts and minds, but equally we need to keep our hearts and minds open to others and the changes they bring.
Recognizing gay marriage doesn’t impose on non-gay peoples’ rights or privacy. Forcing girls and women to compete against or share locker rooms, bathrooms, or even prisons with those born as biological males most certainly does. Which is why the former has been easily accepted by society, but the latter has actively resisted and opposed by a wide majority.
I see that you skipped the other issues. Openly gay men were not permitted in the army and were blocked from professional sports as well. Bathrooms, showers, and sleeping quarters being among the items that were objected to. Before that the same argument was used to keep sports teams, and the military segregated by race. I mean were you going to force white people to use the same bathrooms as black people against their will? Don’t forget there was a time that a wide majority of Americans believed in enforced racial segregation.
The first openly gay football player came out in 2014. That’s only ten years ago. The first openly gay NFL player played his first game as an openly gay man in 2021. The military banned openly gay people until 2011.
Of course hearts and minds have changed over time. First about people of color. They are still changing when it comes to homosexuals. It will likely change for members of the trans community as well. There are trans girls who play sports and are welcomed with open arms by their teammates. I think that my daughter’s generation are going to be far more tolerant and open.
Maybe that’s how it works. I just turned 50. I could never wrap my head around the racial prejudices of my grandparents generation. My parents brought me up differently. While they were openly accepting to people of all races, they were not towards homosexuals. Yet my generation has had little trouble in advancing forward with adding gay and lesbians to the “do not discriminate” list. Maybe a lot of us can’t quite get our heads around the whole trans thing. But our kids are starting from a different place than we did. They know it’s wrong to discriminate against people of color. They know it’s wrong to discriminate against homosexuals. For them the Trans issue isn’t one more step. It’s the first step.
Okay. First, I never mentioned gay marriage for the simple reason that, sure, it doesn’t impinge on me or any else if gay people get married. It might bug you if you are of certain religious persuasions. That’s all. That’s why I never mentioned gay marriage. Gay marriage is a bad analog for this topic. That’s why I mentioned the better analog. People of color were kept out of white restrooms, locker rooms and other “safe spaces.” The same went for gay men. They were not allowed to join the military, participate in sports, etc. These are the same prejudices experienced by the trans community today. No one is arguing against trans marriages.
For better or worse, the principle works in the obverse as well. For now, we no longer believe in the "right" to own slaves,for example. But there has been a general swing toward the individual, unlimited right to bear arms, and the incomplete human embryo or fetus that is unable to survive outside the womb is accorded greater rights than its host. No straight lines to a more just society exist. Was MLK, Jr. wrong?
Perhaps overly optimistic.
I like this post a lot, and I think societies would benefit from understanding it. For better or worse, there is a finite amount of change that an individual or society can endure over some duration of time. If the strategy for change is that "steady breeze", and acceptance of the speed of change, I think that in general things will actually change faster. Of course there are always exceptions. But when people take hard lines and treat it as if it is a fight that must be entirely won right now, rather than a "steady breeze" of changing minds, minds will resist and this leads to slower change (and a more negative environment). Having said that, part of the steady breeze can be small legal changes, that then have time to be accepted, which leads to the next small change, etc. (Note: I have my own range of change acceptance, and certainly do not believe that all change is in a positive direction. So the steady breeze may often slow, and ultimately filter out many calls-for-change that probably should be filtered out, in my opinion.)
For something to be a right for all, it cannot impose on the rights of others. There was a reason women's sports were created and a reason bathrooms are segregated by sex. There's also a reason why we don't see women crossing over to compete with men. People have the right to dress and identify as they please, but they do not get to force that on others and invade their safe spaces.
I’m not sure it works like that. For example the defender of trans rights might argue that you are forcing them to live in your paradigm. Your argument is not really any different than those who used to say that gay men can’t be in sports or the military. Before that we were told it would impose on the rights of white people to force them to be on sports teams and shower with people of color.
Now I may not be the best person to make this argument. I’m a pretty boring straight white dude. I think that part of Dr. Brands’ point is that not only do people need to chsnge hearts and minds, but equally we need to keep our hearts and minds open to others and the changes they bring.
Recognizing gay marriage doesn’t impose on non-gay peoples’ rights or privacy. Forcing girls and women to compete against or share locker rooms, bathrooms, or even prisons with those born as biological males most certainly does. Which is why the former has been easily accepted by society, but the latter has actively resisted and opposed by a wide majority.
I see that you skipped the other issues. Openly gay men were not permitted in the army and were blocked from professional sports as well. Bathrooms, showers, and sleeping quarters being among the items that were objected to. Before that the same argument was used to keep sports teams, and the military segregated by race. I mean were you going to force white people to use the same bathrooms as black people against their will? Don’t forget there was a time that a wide majority of Americans believed in enforced racial segregation.
The first openly gay football player came out in 2014. That’s only ten years ago. The first openly gay NFL player played his first game as an openly gay man in 2021. The military banned openly gay people until 2011.
Of course hearts and minds have changed over time. First about people of color. They are still changing when it comes to homosexuals. It will likely change for members of the trans community as well. There are trans girls who play sports and are welcomed with open arms by their teammates. I think that my daughter’s generation are going to be far more tolerant and open.
Maybe that’s how it works. I just turned 50. I could never wrap my head around the racial prejudices of my grandparents generation. My parents brought me up differently. While they were openly accepting to people of all races, they were not towards homosexuals. Yet my generation has had little trouble in advancing forward with adding gay and lesbians to the “do not discriminate” list. Maybe a lot of us can’t quite get our heads around the whole trans thing. But our kids are starting from a different place than we did. They know it’s wrong to discriminate against people of color. They know it’s wrong to discriminate against homosexuals. For them the Trans issue isn’t one more step. It’s the first step.
I skipped the other issues because they aren’t relevant to the point I’m making, which you skipped over.
Okay. First, I never mentioned gay marriage for the simple reason that, sure, it doesn’t impinge on me or any else if gay people get married. It might bug you if you are of certain religious persuasions. That’s all. That’s why I never mentioned gay marriage. Gay marriage is a bad analog for this topic. That’s why I mentioned the better analog. People of color were kept out of white restrooms, locker rooms and other “safe spaces.” The same went for gay men. They were not allowed to join the military, participate in sports, etc. These are the same prejudices experienced by the trans community today. No one is arguing against trans marriages.