Lisa's longing to be able to talk sympathetically to people who are obviously horribly indoctrinated is commendable, but I think there's a reason she can't do it: because it's horribly dishonest.
When someone says, "Here's my tomboy who just had cosmetic radical mastectomies," my automatic response would not be, "Wow, tell me all about it!" but, "Oh, sweetheart, I'm so sorry!"
The girl's response might be bristling, "Don't feel sorry for me! I wanted it!"
So then I'd say, "I'm *sorry*," with eye contact of full sincerity and knowing the truth.
What's she going to do? Keep arguing with me for apologizing? She has no off-ramp into self-righteous rage from there, only into something like unwilling graciousness. All she can do is grudgingly accept my apology and move on.
Now, that girl might continue pretending she's a boy after this. She will. But that little voice inside her saying, "This hurts me! It's terrifying! It makes me feel sick and out-of-control! Why am I doing it to myself?" knows that it has just been heard. And that voice is the only voice that can talk sense to her.
I learned this from my grandmother, who was a full-on conservative with a family of full-on liberal grandkids. I shot off my mouth to her about all KINDS of stuff as a teenager. And she just kept rolling along with, "All right, honey, if that's how you want to see it." I'd say, "It's not how I WANT to see it. It's how it IS." And she'd say, "Yes, dear."
Sometimes I pushed her until she got amused. But she never lost her cool. She didn't have to get mad at me. I was just a kid. She was the adult in the room.
I also learned this from my training in disclosure from abused children, when I worked at a Battered Women's Shelter.
When a child blurts out involuntarily, "My daddy hurt me," that child will not hear sympathy in, "Wow, tell me what happened." They'll hear adult curiosity, maybe even collaboration with daddy. So they'll automatically shut down.
Instead, they need to hear, "Oh, sweetheart, I'm so sorry!" Then they're more likely to feel safe with you, and that sense of safety is what leads to opening up.
A child who's been groomed into harm by an adult in their life is now already intensely distrustful of adults. They know this is harm, even while they're parroting the adult who says, "It's good! It's fun! It shows I love you!" This applies to every abused child, including minors in the Trans panic.
So the choice to tell someone else all about it has to come from within, not from another adult. Does this adult care what happens to me? Or are they expecting me to repeat the justifications of the adults who got me into this mess?
A teenager will repeat those justifications with a sense of self-righteousness: "look at me being an adult just like the adults who groomed me!" But they know they're only justifications. The real, secret truth is that surgeries hurt, wrong-sex hormones make you feel sick and out-of-control, all of it is terrifying adult stuff being inflicted on a minor, and deep down they don't understand how they got themself into this mess.
When they hear, "Oh, sweetheart, I'm so sorry!" even if they're a teen groomed to react with self-righteous anger, they hear the sincere voice of an adult who just might actually know how they got themself into this mess and what to do about it now.
Kate Strangio might have told Lisa that her name is pronounced "Strahngio," but it's not. Her aunt (who is married to her uncle) pronounces it "Strangio" just like the rest of us.
Kate must have used that family name instead of her other family name thinking she was pulling a fast one on everyone--"oooh, I'm strange"--and then regretted it when it turned out everyone said, "Wow, she's strange."
Irony: The very disagreeableness that generates Lisa's skepticism often gets the better of her so that she scares off the very individuals whose broken thinking most interests her.
I am sure a lot of folks listening can relate.
But, knowing as much as Lisa does what the ultimate consequences of this cultural "enthusiasm" are for so many hapless individuals, having someone casually aim their twisted pseudo-religious assumptions at her own kid is just going to activate a Mom's reptilian brain reflex to defend . . . And thank god (or evolution) for that!
If you think about it, being able to override that and fake innocent interest to draw out the frank truth about what's going through someone's head, requires one to be "fake." I don't know about there rest of us, but it's a strange combination of my ego and my propensity to feel guilt over having lied, that makes playing this sort of stealth innocent curiosity role in a conversation with someone you cannot help but think is "uninformed" and "misguided" leave one feeling kinda' dirty -- oh, and maybe fear getting a reputation for being a fake person.
I agree that deep listening is important and that one can learn a lot. But what I'm getting at is the fact that being able to (on a dime) turn off one's instinct to defend during an unexpected encounter with this "the world is flat"-type mindset (particularly when its effects you've already witnessed threatening the wellbeing of your own child) requires maintaining a pretty opaque demeanor towards others regarding at least some of what one really thinks, does it not?
Some temperaments may naturally lend themselves to remaining poker-faced while someone you've just met rattles on about their virtuous stance on "trans children" (or is fooled into sharing intimate details about their own "trans kid," under the mistaken impression she's addressing a fellow believer), while others . . . well, personally, I have found on the occasions when I'm in the presence of someone who embraces such malignant and damaging ideas -- and I manage to give them no reason to suspect I don't agree -- very unpleasant. And there's a good chance I will despise myself later on for allowing that person to believe I agree with them. And I've had enough encounters with people who've fully bought into the opposite stance on this issue to learn about how this set of beliefs works in practice socially. There's precious little toleration for any disagreement, and as the mindset includes believing the notion that anyone who doesn't endorse and celebrate "lifesaving care" is a moral monster. And the person whose confidences I drew out by listening with a pleasant expression and never challenging, but who subsequently learned of my true opinions, would probably label me fake. I have to think that journalists have to develop a thick hide against all those individuals they've persuaded into an interview but who later feel betrayed by how they're portrayed . . .
“It’s deranged NOT to be sceptical of Trump…” OK, that’s it. I’m done listening to this. And I’m a former lifelong Democrat. Do you have ANY idea where we’d be if Kamala Harris were president? No?
It would be awesome if one candidate’s awfulness served to redouble the other’s fitness proportionately, but I haven’t seen evidence of that, ever. If ‘gender’ was the only issue troubling the developed world, I’d be wearing a MAGA hat all day. Alas, it is not.
Yes. The trans movement has blood on their hands. Several wives killed while trying to leave the crossdressing husband, anonymous suicides acknowledge by families of 4 trans widows. Countless fatherless children.
Fantastic interview! The question torturing my mind every day is this:
For all the people in the gender critical space who started out “left” and have turned “right” (I mean really right- pro Trump, pro MAGA style populism, very little tolerance for gender nonconformity and freedom of expression, etc.) how do you think things will go when Trump is out of the picture? Do you think it was a good idea to closely align yourselves with the right wing? We haven’t created a sufficient off ramp for lefties who were captured by gender ideology. The majority of Americans have become radicalized on one side or the other in the gender culture war debate. Republican bans on harming children are not enough to get these harmful ideas about sex and gender out of our culture. Inevitably, Democrat politicians will regain control of the executive and legislative branches of government. When this happens, when the Trump administration is gone, will we be able to convince the pro trans side? Or will the opposite happen? There was an excellent Substack article recently by Jamie Paul, implying that the excesses of the trans rights movement have ruined their chances, essentially declaring game over. What do we think? Is Jamie Paul’s analysis correct? American medical associations are still captured, as is the NYT. I don’t think we have the right ingredients yet.
I don't know any women who have gone full-MAGA after peaking on this issue, but instead they have become right by standing still. I will say I was in full TDS until a few years ago. I voted blue my entire voting life until this last election and have found it so odd to suddenly be thought of as a bigoted, racist idiot by so many in the party I left behind. I think there are a lot of us types out there.
Wow, that is one epic piece. I just read it. Thanks for sharing. This would be so enlightening for our fellow liberals to read, and I am itching to share it. But I'm afraid it's too long for anyone who already thinks "why do you care so much about this??" to read it. It would just reinforce their idea that I'm obsessed with this topic to an unhealthy degree (which is probably true). But if they actually read it, they would have to understand, right?
I thought being Covid-critical was a lonely place, but I realize that this is feels even lonelier. At least with the Covid restrictions, nobody could say "this doesn't affect you!".
You should share it. “This doesn’t affect you” is a thought terminating cliche. As we know, gender ideology affects everyone- mass scale denial of objective reality destroys democratic societies. Furthermore, when they say “this doesn’t affect you” they’re admitting to the harms by tacitly acknowledging the problem exists, but then trying to minimize it by saying it shouldn’t concern you. They’re saying “yes, ok this thing exists and affects some people, but not you.” You’re already halfway there with someone saying “this doesn’t affect you.”
It has been my concern all along that the Trump administration's actions on this issue, however laudable, will be Pyrrhic victories. They will make many Democrats dig in their heels. Call it TDS, but there are good reasons to mistrust anything Trump does, and the people who don't understand this issue (which is most) will reject and try to reverse every one of his actions they have filed under "bigotry". I can't believe I would ever say this, but I dread the Democrats coming back to power, as I fear they will take federal policy on this issue right back to where it was. Sometimes I think we need another couple of Republican administrations to solidify what was achieved over the past year at the federal level, and make it harder to reboot the gender industrial complex.
Jenny and Kate--I totally share these fears. However, the next administration is still three years away. I expect that other critical changes outside what a president can or might do will have come into play by then. The mainstream press and the medical bodies may have shifted by then, let's hope so. The Democratic party WILL shift with those institutions, even as they have catastrophically not shifted because of public opinion. But public opinion is still powerful, and it continues to change the landscape! Even if a Democrat were somehow in the White House next month, I don't think it would be easy politically to simply reverse all the gender policies Trump has put in via executive orders. The far left of the base would demand it, but the center, most of whom were oblivious to what Biden (and Obama) did while in office, now are better informed and much, much more unhappy with some of those policies Democrats have championed.
I would come to charm school for gender critical conversations. We all need to find ways to put our emotions to the side and help people think more critically on this topic. I was quite surprised to hear you say you struggle with it (both of you) because in every interview /discussion I hear you in, you are so composed and articulate. I think you are closer than you think, but in the meantime who can give all us parents a lesson on how to do this?
This conversation, featuring as it does, two of the most thoughtful, humane people I know, was a must listen for me—and I’m here to say, it did not disappoint. Indeed, I’ve saved the transcript for reference (thank you, Jenny, for showing me how to find Substack transcripts a while back).
It was interesting to hear you both talk about DIAG where, as you know, I am a volunteer. DIAG, right now, is in the midst of a lively conversation toward how best to move forward in 2026. As 2026 is an election year and the stakes are very high, this is a daunting prospect, to say the least!
Out of those conversations, I want to add an additional thing into the mix of what you discussed regarding how to reach Democratic politicians on these issues. That is, politicians by and large aren’t leaders, but followers. In assessing how to position themselves, they listen to two things: money (hence the outsized impact of the gender-identity lobbies) and votes.
Time-tested precepts for successful political organizing are based on strength in numbers. When politicians hear from their own constituents en masse, they start to pay attention, because their constituents=votes. So, as part of any successful strategy for changing the minds of politicians, and as the wonderful Hippiesq has often observed, we also have to be about the business of changing hearts and minds on the ground.
I’d love to see DIAG (or perhaps a consortium of sex-realist groups) directly sponsor a conference, or perhaps an online series of talks, that addresses various aspects related to changing hearts and minds. Toward that end, here’s an abbreviated version of a “fantasy conference” that Lisa’s “conference” post inspired me to dream up:
>Carol Tavris as keynote speaker, followed by a conversation with her and the two of you;
>Panels on Dealing with the Press, Direct Action Techniques, and Legislative Lobbying Techniques;
>Presentations from, e.g., James Meacham on use of language, Dan Williams on “rational persuasion”, and Justin Delacour on the perspective from the Left (all three are on Substack, and I commend their work to all here); and
>Facilitated small-group break-out sessions to try out and workshop persuasion techniques based on various hypotheticals.
Like Lisa, though of course for other reasons, I am not in a position to mount such a conference/series of online talks, I would certainly try to find ways to help out. Meanwhile, I can dream . . .
Thank you for this wonderful conversation, and may we all have many successes in 2026.
Thank you for all that wisdom, and the compliments too! I’d like to add Ruy Texeira from the Liberal Patriot to your fantasy team, and can think of so many others, as I’m sure you can too.
I’m picturing a series of videos in which real reporters have asked real questions of Dem candidates (Kamala vs the one about prison transition for illegals being the shining example, but there have to be hundreds more out there) followed by a measured, clear and winning reply from Kara or LSD or Jonah Wheeler, Maud Maron, etc. Wouldn’t it be powerful to get all those brilliant minds on a fast-moving reel, showing confounded real-life candidates how it should be done?
Well, that’s a different kind of conference/series—fine on its own, of course, but not going after the same thing. What I’m trying to stress is that, since politicians are followers, not leaders, we need much more focus on ground up strategies, which includes learning more about how to do effective grassroots political mobilization. This is a seriously missing component in our efforts.
For the reasons I outlined, I simply don’t think the politicians are going to move until a large number of their constituents light a fire under them. What’s so confounding with regard to the grassroots level is that polls show that a majority of Democrats/Dem-leaners agree with our stances on key issues—notably sports and medicalization of minors—yet we’re not seeing a concomitant increase in DIAG supporters.
One of the things that’s been discussed in recent DIAG volunteer exchanges is a concept called “preference cascade,” which I believe is likely strongly related to our current situation. (A preference cascade is a social phenomenon where many people publicly express hidden private beliefs, leading to a rapid, unexpected shift in social norms or political opinion, often after a critical number of individuals signal it's safe to do so.)
It goes back to something Maya Forstater said early on: “How did the gender madness break,” they will ask. “Two ways. Gradually and then suddenly.”
We’re at the “gradually,” and we need to get to the “suddenly”—and that starts as the grassroots.
And now I will keep out of your timeline, I promise!
This was a great conversation. Meeting people where they are is definitely going to be a huge challenge going forward, for many of us. I find that the closer I am to a person, the harder it is to discuss these topics with the right blend of compassion and dispassion. I'm reasonably good at it with strangers. The closer I am to a person, the more I want to shake the person and yell, "Men aren't women! What is wrong with you!" That's not helpful. I did manage to have a productive conversation with an acquaintance last fall, before the election, in explaining why I did not intend to vote for Kamala Harris. I mentioned men in women's prisons and he said, "But does that really happen though?" I managed to explain calmly instead of grabbing him and yelling "OMG WOMEN ARE BEING RAPED IN PRISONS EVERY DAY BY MEN WHO CALL THEMSELVES WOMEN!"
I don't think I knew that Lisa had sat down with Chase. The closest I ever got to talking with Chase was the time she yelled at me from across a crowded room during a school board meeting in New York.
Lisa's longing to be able to talk sympathetically to people who are obviously horribly indoctrinated is commendable, but I think there's a reason she can't do it: because it's horribly dishonest.
When someone says, "Here's my tomboy who just had cosmetic radical mastectomies," my automatic response would not be, "Wow, tell me all about it!" but, "Oh, sweetheart, I'm so sorry!"
The girl's response might be bristling, "Don't feel sorry for me! I wanted it!"
So then I'd say, "I'm *sorry*," with eye contact of full sincerity and knowing the truth.
What's she going to do? Keep arguing with me for apologizing? She has no off-ramp into self-righteous rage from there, only into something like unwilling graciousness. All she can do is grudgingly accept my apology and move on.
Now, that girl might continue pretending she's a boy after this. She will. But that little voice inside her saying, "This hurts me! It's terrifying! It makes me feel sick and out-of-control! Why am I doing it to myself?" knows that it has just been heard. And that voice is the only voice that can talk sense to her.
I learned this from my grandmother, who was a full-on conservative with a family of full-on liberal grandkids. I shot off my mouth to her about all KINDS of stuff as a teenager. And she just kept rolling along with, "All right, honey, if that's how you want to see it." I'd say, "It's not how I WANT to see it. It's how it IS." And she'd say, "Yes, dear."
Sometimes I pushed her until she got amused. But she never lost her cool. She didn't have to get mad at me. I was just a kid. She was the adult in the room.
I also learned this from my training in disclosure from abused children, when I worked at a Battered Women's Shelter.
When a child blurts out involuntarily, "My daddy hurt me," that child will not hear sympathy in, "Wow, tell me what happened." They'll hear adult curiosity, maybe even collaboration with daddy. So they'll automatically shut down.
Instead, they need to hear, "Oh, sweetheart, I'm so sorry!" Then they're more likely to feel safe with you, and that sense of safety is what leads to opening up.
A child who's been groomed into harm by an adult in their life is now already intensely distrustful of adults. They know this is harm, even while they're parroting the adult who says, "It's good! It's fun! It shows I love you!" This applies to every abused child, including minors in the Trans panic.
So the choice to tell someone else all about it has to come from within, not from another adult. Does this adult care what happens to me? Or are they expecting me to repeat the justifications of the adults who got me into this mess?
A teenager will repeat those justifications with a sense of self-righteousness: "look at me being an adult just like the adults who groomed me!" But they know they're only justifications. The real, secret truth is that surgeries hurt, wrong-sex hormones make you feel sick and out-of-control, all of it is terrifying adult stuff being inflicted on a minor, and deep down they don't understand how they got themself into this mess.
When they hear, "Oh, sweetheart, I'm so sorry!" even if they're a teen groomed to react with self-righteous anger, they hear the sincere voice of an adult who just might actually know how they got themself into this mess and what to do about it now.
Kate Strangio might have told Lisa that her name is pronounced "Strahngio," but it's not. Her aunt (who is married to her uncle) pronounces it "Strangio" just like the rest of us.
Kate must have used that family name instead of her other family name thinking she was pulling a fast one on everyone--"oooh, I'm strange"--and then regretted it when it turned out everyone said, "Wow, she's strange."
Thank you for this great conversation, Jenny and Lisa!
Irony: The very disagreeableness that generates Lisa's skepticism often gets the better of her so that she scares off the very individuals whose broken thinking most interests her.
I am sure a lot of folks listening can relate.
But, knowing as much as Lisa does what the ultimate consequences of this cultural "enthusiasm" are for so many hapless individuals, having someone casually aim their twisted pseudo-religious assumptions at her own kid is just going to activate a Mom's reptilian brain reflex to defend . . . And thank god (or evolution) for that!
If you think about it, being able to override that and fake innocent interest to draw out the frank truth about what's going through someone's head, requires one to be "fake." I don't know about there rest of us, but it's a strange combination of my ego and my propensity to feel guilt over having lied, that makes playing this sort of stealth innocent curiosity role in a conversation with someone you cannot help but think is "uninformed" and "misguided" leave one feeling kinda' dirty -- oh, and maybe fear getting a reputation for being a fake person.
I agree that deep listening is important and that one can learn a lot. But what I'm getting at is the fact that being able to (on a dime) turn off one's instinct to defend during an unexpected encounter with this "the world is flat"-type mindset (particularly when its effects you've already witnessed threatening the wellbeing of your own child) requires maintaining a pretty opaque demeanor towards others regarding at least some of what one really thinks, does it not?
Some temperaments may naturally lend themselves to remaining poker-faced while someone you've just met rattles on about their virtuous stance on "trans children" (or is fooled into sharing intimate details about their own "trans kid," under the mistaken impression she's addressing a fellow believer), while others . . . well, personally, I have found on the occasions when I'm in the presence of someone who embraces such malignant and damaging ideas -- and I manage to give them no reason to suspect I don't agree -- very unpleasant. And there's a good chance I will despise myself later on for allowing that person to believe I agree with them. And I've had enough encounters with people who've fully bought into the opposite stance on this issue to learn about how this set of beliefs works in practice socially. There's precious little toleration for any disagreement, and as the mindset includes believing the notion that anyone who doesn't endorse and celebrate "lifesaving care" is a moral monster. And the person whose confidences I drew out by listening with a pleasant expression and never challenging, but who subsequently learned of my true opinions, would probably label me fake. I have to think that journalists have to develop a thick hide against all those individuals they've persuaded into an interview but who later feel betrayed by how they're portrayed . . .
“It’s deranged NOT to be sceptical of Trump…” OK, that’s it. I’m done listening to this. And I’m a former lifelong Democrat. Do you have ANY idea where we’d be if Kamala Harris were president? No?
It would be awesome if one candidate’s awfulness served to redouble the other’s fitness proportionately, but I haven’t seen evidence of that, ever. If ‘gender’ was the only issue troubling the developed world, I’d be wearing a MAGA hat all day. Alas, it is not.
Yes. The trans movement has blood on their hands. Several wives killed while trying to leave the crossdressing husband, anonymous suicides acknowledge by families of 4 trans widows. Countless fatherless children.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0b5FxQVVfU
Brilliant conversation. Thank you!
Fantastic interview! The question torturing my mind every day is this:
For all the people in the gender critical space who started out “left” and have turned “right” (I mean really right- pro Trump, pro MAGA style populism, very little tolerance for gender nonconformity and freedom of expression, etc.) how do you think things will go when Trump is out of the picture? Do you think it was a good idea to closely align yourselves with the right wing? We haven’t created a sufficient off ramp for lefties who were captured by gender ideology. The majority of Americans have become radicalized on one side or the other in the gender culture war debate. Republican bans on harming children are not enough to get these harmful ideas about sex and gender out of our culture. Inevitably, Democrat politicians will regain control of the executive and legislative branches of government. When this happens, when the Trump administration is gone, will we be able to convince the pro trans side? Or will the opposite happen? There was an excellent Substack article recently by Jamie Paul, implying that the excesses of the trans rights movement have ruined their chances, essentially declaring game over. What do we think? Is Jamie Paul’s analysis correct? American medical associations are still captured, as is the NYT. I don’t think we have the right ingredients yet.
I don't know any women who have gone full-MAGA after peaking on this issue, but instead they have become right by standing still. I will say I was in full TDS until a few years ago. I voted blue my entire voting life until this last election and have found it so odd to suddenly be thought of as a bigoted, racist idiot by so many in the party I left behind. I think there are a lot of us types out there.
Yes the Overton window shifted. That’s where I’m at also.
Can you please link to this piece by Jamie Paul? I can't find it.
https://open.substack.com/pub/americandreaming/p/memory-hole-archive-sex-and-transgender?r=2r7z10&utm_medium=ios&shareImageVariant=overlay
Wow, that is one epic piece. I just read it. Thanks for sharing. This would be so enlightening for our fellow liberals to read, and I am itching to share it. But I'm afraid it's too long for anyone who already thinks "why do you care so much about this??" to read it. It would just reinforce their idea that I'm obsessed with this topic to an unhealthy degree (which is probably true). But if they actually read it, they would have to understand, right?
I thought being Covid-critical was a lonely place, but I realize that this is feels even lonelier. At least with the Covid restrictions, nobody could say "this doesn't affect you!".
You should share it. “This doesn’t affect you” is a thought terminating cliche. As we know, gender ideology affects everyone- mass scale denial of objective reality destroys democratic societies. Furthermore, when they say “this doesn’t affect you” they’re admitting to the harms by tacitly acknowledging the problem exists, but then trying to minimize it by saying it shouldn’t concern you. They’re saying “yes, ok this thing exists and affects some people, but not you.” You’re already halfway there with someone saying “this doesn’t affect you.”
Thank you, I had not seen that!
It has been my concern all along that the Trump administration's actions on this issue, however laudable, will be Pyrrhic victories. They will make many Democrats dig in their heels. Call it TDS, but there are good reasons to mistrust anything Trump does, and the people who don't understand this issue (which is most) will reject and try to reverse every one of his actions they have filed under "bigotry". I can't believe I would ever say this, but I dread the Democrats coming back to power, as I fear they will take federal policy on this issue right back to where it was. Sometimes I think we need another couple of Republican administrations to solidify what was achieved over the past year at the federal level, and make it harder to reboot the gender industrial complex.
My thoughts and fears exactly, Kate.
Jenny and Kate--I totally share these fears. However, the next administration is still three years away. I expect that other critical changes outside what a president can or might do will have come into play by then. The mainstream press and the medical bodies may have shifted by then, let's hope so. The Democratic party WILL shift with those institutions, even as they have catastrophically not shifted because of public opinion. But public opinion is still powerful, and it continues to change the landscape! Even if a Democrat were somehow in the White House next month, I don't think it would be easy politically to simply reverse all the gender policies Trump has put in via executive orders. The far left of the base would demand it, but the center, most of whom were oblivious to what Biden (and Obama) did while in office, now are better informed and much, much more unhappy with some of those policies Democrats have championed.
Also, the Jamie Paul piece is fantastic -- comprehensive and spot-on. Thanks for posting it here -- I recommend it to everyone.
I would come to charm school for gender critical conversations. We all need to find ways to put our emotions to the side and help people think more critically on this topic. I was quite surprised to hear you say you struggle with it (both of you) because in every interview /discussion I hear you in, you are so composed and articulate. I think you are closer than you think, but in the meantime who can give all us parents a lesson on how to do this?
This conversation, featuring as it does, two of the most thoughtful, humane people I know, was a must listen for me—and I’m here to say, it did not disappoint. Indeed, I’ve saved the transcript for reference (thank you, Jenny, for showing me how to find Substack transcripts a while back).
It was interesting to hear you both talk about DIAG where, as you know, I am a volunteer. DIAG, right now, is in the midst of a lively conversation toward how best to move forward in 2026. As 2026 is an election year and the stakes are very high, this is a daunting prospect, to say the least!
Out of those conversations, I want to add an additional thing into the mix of what you discussed regarding how to reach Democratic politicians on these issues. That is, politicians by and large aren’t leaders, but followers. In assessing how to position themselves, they listen to two things: money (hence the outsized impact of the gender-identity lobbies) and votes.
Time-tested precepts for successful political organizing are based on strength in numbers. When politicians hear from their own constituents en masse, they start to pay attention, because their constituents=votes. So, as part of any successful strategy for changing the minds of politicians, and as the wonderful Hippiesq has often observed, we also have to be about the business of changing hearts and minds on the ground.
I’d love to see DIAG (or perhaps a consortium of sex-realist groups) directly sponsor a conference, or perhaps an online series of talks, that addresses various aspects related to changing hearts and minds. Toward that end, here’s an abbreviated version of a “fantasy conference” that Lisa’s “conference” post inspired me to dream up:
>Carol Tavris as keynote speaker, followed by a conversation with her and the two of you;
>Panels on Dealing with the Press, Direct Action Techniques, and Legislative Lobbying Techniques;
>Presentations from, e.g., James Meacham on use of language, Dan Williams on “rational persuasion”, and Justin Delacour on the perspective from the Left (all three are on Substack, and I commend their work to all here); and
>Facilitated small-group break-out sessions to try out and workshop persuasion techniques based on various hypotheticals.
Like Lisa, though of course for other reasons, I am not in a position to mount such a conference/series of online talks, I would certainly try to find ways to help out. Meanwhile, I can dream . . .
Thank you for this wonderful conversation, and may we all have many successes in 2026.
Thank you for all that wisdom, and the compliments too! I’d like to add Ruy Texeira from the Liberal Patriot to your fantasy team, and can think of so many others, as I’m sure you can too.
I’m picturing a series of videos in which real reporters have asked real questions of Dem candidates (Kamala vs the one about prison transition for illegals being the shining example, but there have to be hundreds more out there) followed by a measured, clear and winning reply from Kara or LSD or Jonah Wheeler, Maud Maron, etc. Wouldn’t it be powerful to get all those brilliant minds on a fast-moving reel, showing confounded real-life candidates how it should be done?
Well, that’s a different kind of conference/series—fine on its own, of course, but not going after the same thing. What I’m trying to stress is that, since politicians are followers, not leaders, we need much more focus on ground up strategies, which includes learning more about how to do effective grassroots political mobilization. This is a seriously missing component in our efforts.
For the reasons I outlined, I simply don’t think the politicians are going to move until a large number of their constituents light a fire under them. What’s so confounding with regard to the grassroots level is that polls show that a majority of Democrats/Dem-leaners agree with our stances on key issues—notably sports and medicalization of minors—yet we’re not seeing a concomitant increase in DIAG supporters.
One of the things that’s been discussed in recent DIAG volunteer exchanges is a concept called “preference cascade,” which I believe is likely strongly related to our current situation. (A preference cascade is a social phenomenon where many people publicly express hidden private beliefs, leading to a rapid, unexpected shift in social norms or political opinion, often after a critical number of individuals signal it's safe to do so.)
It goes back to something Maya Forstater said early on: “How did the gender madness break,” they will ask. “Two ways. Gradually and then suddenly.”
We’re at the “gradually,” and we need to get to the “suddenly”—and that starts as the grassroots.
And now I will keep out of your timeline, I promise!
All your points are fair and right, so please don't go!
In your willingness to put up with my blathering on, you have just added another to the long list of reasons I think you are so wonderful.❤️🙏❤️
Really good convo. I loved Lisa's stump speech at the end ... this is the USA, people! 👏
This was a great conversation. Meeting people where they are is definitely going to be a huge challenge going forward, for many of us. I find that the closer I am to a person, the harder it is to discuss these topics with the right blend of compassion and dispassion. I'm reasonably good at it with strangers. The closer I am to a person, the more I want to shake the person and yell, "Men aren't women! What is wrong with you!" That's not helpful. I did manage to have a productive conversation with an acquaintance last fall, before the election, in explaining why I did not intend to vote for Kamala Harris. I mentioned men in women's prisons and he said, "But does that really happen though?" I managed to explain calmly instead of grabbing him and yelling "OMG WOMEN ARE BEING RAPED IN PRISONS EVERY DAY BY MEN WHO CALL THEMSELVES WOMEN!"
I don't think I knew that Lisa had sat down with Chase. The closest I ever got to talking with Chase was the time she yelled at me from across a crowded room during a school board meeting in New York.
Thinking of Chase Strangio as "Judith Butler meets Roy Cohn" -- brilliant!!