Great stuff. I appreciate the effort you're putting into applying rationalist methods to the questions at play. I hope your fellow rationalists are paying attention. I have a theological quibble however (which doesn't detract from your overall point) - the Catholic vs Protestant conflict wasn't over which God they pray to, but instead about who has authority over believers. It's more like the Sunni/Shia split in that sense - truly a struggle for political/secular power as expressed through religious leaders. And the Protestant message that you didn't need a massive ecclesiastical bureaucracy to manage your connection to God ultimately led to western values for individualism and scientific experimentation. But that's a whole other topic. 😊
Thanks man, although it's not really rationalists who need rescuing here! I do intend to make sure the rationalist toolbox gets broader and more approachable applications.
And yes, I know the Catholic/Protestant tiff wasn't about worshipping a different god, and so I used the phrase "fictional entity" specifically because it was broad enough to include disputes over ecclesiastical bureaucracy as well. It takes me a lot of willpower to make sure I don't pepper endless disclaimers and qualifiers within my writing!
There was another opt-in online poll showing that half of Israeli Jews supported biblical genocide with nonsensical cross tabs - 47% of all Israeli Jews, 30% of Labor supporters, more Masortim and Haredim than Datim supporting it - discussed here: https://archive.is/iJoEJ .
So in general be vary of online opt-in polls. The people just want to click yes yes yes on everything to get the gift card raffle at the end or whatever. You get nonsensical results so do not take them seriously.
I see. So that’s very different from the garbage Israel survey where they didn’t release the methodology but it was some kind of opt-in online poll and where the results diverged sharply from every reliable poll, and very different from the Holocaust denial survey from Pew where it was some opt-in online poll and again the results diverged sharply from every reliable poll. David Shor actually did work to get rid of the usual mistakes from opt-in online polls, unlike in these two examples.
I feel obligated to nitpick, and state that many religious groups don't actually have any theological obligation to "correct" unbelievers.
Included in this group of religions are bighitters like Buddhism, Sikhi, and somewhat ironically, Judaism.
Of course, a lack of obligation to oppress nonbelievers has never gotten in the way of anyones fun, especially when you can twist your religion to add "perks" like having sex with children into it (which has been depressingly common through Buddhist history, unfortunately).
You're completely right, I was intentionally trying to speak in generalities because I have a bad habit of getting bogged down with persnickety disclaimers that seriously bog down my writing.
Throughout Buddhist history? I understood csa as fallout from a gender-segregated monastic system (that'll do it, in any tradition) in Tibet, is there more?
Yes, unfortunately. It was considered pure to have sex with small children in the Japanese monastic system, since they weren't adults that meant that it wasn't really breaking your celibacy, apparently.
I'm sure there are other examples, but those are the two that immediately spring to mind. Sex abuse seems to be a pretty predictable result of vows of celibacy.
This is a really insightful piece. So well-written and perfectly structured to guide your reader through some fairly complex thoughts without alerting the reader ahead of time exactly where you were headed. Kind of like suspense philosophy 🤔.
Also, I love your ideas about how to correct for past harms by choosing the right targets. And the way you explained why the antizionism/antisemitism thing is a distinction without a difference as well as inappropriate targeting, which I think is close enough to scapegoating that I’ll just keep saying that (but with a more precise meaning).
This rabbi was a student of mine. Her synagogue was shot at by someone shouting "Free Palestine." One more data point because there's so much of it but it slips through the fingers of our attention spans and memory.
Yes, great example, I added it! It was hard to remember the litany of incidents that had cropped up recently because I didn't start keeping a list until about a month ago.
Right? You got me curious so I did a search and found:
ttps://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/antisemitism-jewish-man-attacked-upper-east-side-new-york-city/ "Police say the suspects yelled "Free Palestine" before punching a 72-year-old Jewish man."
"If someone shot up a gay nightclub, their defense of 'I don’t hate gay men per se, only people who attend gay night clubs' would be deemed an unacceptable salami slice."
Man swears loyalty to ISIS, shoots up a gay nightclub in Orlando in response to US bombings in the middle east. Said gay club happened to be hosting Latino night that night.
"Two survivors quoted Mateen as saying, 'I don't have a problem with black people,'[32][33] and that he 'wouldn't stop his assault until America stopped bombing his country.'"
I was explicitly thinking about the Pulse nightclub shooting when I wrote that, but I didn't want to do a deep dive into that specific incident. I think it came out during his wife's trial that Mateen was driving around and searching for a random nightclub to target, and that he wasn't pursuing a gay nightclub specifically. Pulse was apparently his second choice, because his first pick apparently had too much security.
Oh, if only everyone was as thoughtful as you are (I don't know you; I"m sure you slip ;) but obviously you try very hard!) Your point about how the spread of terror is such a significant piece of this...not only a consequence but usually a motive..And we know that terror begets more terror. We're living in very precarious times, here in the U.S. and in most places. BTW, I did know that "antisemitic" was really a broader word, and that somehow that got lost.
"If someone shot up a gay nightclub, their defense of 'I don’t hate gay men per se, only people who attend gay night clubs' would be deemed an unacceptable salami slice. [...] We generally disapprove of Not Guilty By Reason of Semantics."
Well... we used to generally disapprove, but is the decision in US v. Skrmetti a sign that that might be changing?
I don't think it's a sign of much, the legal system doesn't really know how to deal with trans identity because there's too many incoherent implications to reconcile. I do believe that Skrmetti is a great illustration of how the search for the essential characteristic is made in vain. Depending on how you slice the salami, it's reasonable to come to completely different conclusions.
Skremetti has zero to do with someone shooting up gay adults in a nightclub. Similarly Queers for Palestine has nothing to do with them caring one bit about Palestine.
Skrmetti has everything to do with the question of whether we "disapprove of Not Guilty By Reason Of Semantics" when it comes to targeting people on the basis of protected characteristics.
The court decided that because Tennessee's law is phrased as banning the use of certain drugs for the treatment of gender dysphoria, it doesn't have to meet the same standard as it would if it were phrased as banning their use by transgender people - even though the effect is the same, because the sets of "people who experience gender dysphoria" and "transgender people" overlap even more than do "men who attend gay nightclubs" and "gay men".
>the sets of "people who experience gender dysphoria" and "transgender people"
I presume that the majority of people who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria identify as trans, but not everyone who identifies as trans has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
Not every gay person goes to nightclubs, but we can still recognize that discrimination against people who go to gay nightclubs is just dressed-up discrimination against gay people.
Likewise, even though not every person who identifies as trans has a gender dysphoria diagnosis, we can still recognize that discrimination against people with GD is just dressed-up discrimination against trans people.
(Besides, we're talking about a medical context, and everyone who's getting transgender-specific medical treatment generally will have a gender dysphoria diagnosis. They have to have *some* kind of diagnosis for billing.)
No, Skremetti is about whether it is safe to permanently mutilate children who at the moment believe themselves to be in the wrong body, rather than temporarily experiencing gender dysphoria or are still (as teens always do) coming to terms with their sexuality. In the past it was okay to figure out that you are gay. For some bizarre reason trans activists are trying to makes the hyper conservative statement that a teen firmly knows these things (false) and that no such sexual preference as gay exists - you’re either straight or in the wrong body.
The Supreme Court didn't rule on the merits of Tennessee's law, they only ruled on what level of scrutiny the law has to meet in order to be constitutional.
Their decision was that, alhough they previously ruled that discrimination based on transgender status is a form of sex discrimination, Tennessee's law doesn't have to meet the usual bar for sex discrimination because it says "gender dysphoria" instead of "transgender".
This is like saying that a ban on treatment for "gonadal cancers in female patients" should be judged by a different standard than a ban on treatment for "ovarian cancer", because one contains the word "female" and the other doesn't, even though they both affect exactly the same people in exactly the same way. In other words, Not Guilty by Reason of Semantics.
As for the argument you're making here about the merits of Tennessee's law... I'll resist the temptation to respond point by point with citations and whatnot, and just say that (1) it bans more than you seem to think it does, and (2) if trans activists are supposed to be claiming there's no such thing as being gay, that news has yet to reach the ACLU, the Human Rights Campaign, and the countless people out there who identify as both gay and trans.
This is not an accurate summary of the Skrmetti case either!
The majority opinion specifically cited Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 484 (1974) that ruled that a program which excluded eligibility on the basis of pregnancy did not count as discrimination on the basis of sex. See footnote 20: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/417/484/#F20
"Absent a showing that distinctions involving pregnancy are mere pretexts designed to effect an invidious discrimination against the members of one sex or the other, lawmakers are constitutionally free to include or exclude pregnancy from the coverage of legislation such as this on any reasonable basis, just as with respect to any other physical condition.
The lack of identity between the excluded disability and gender as such under this insurance program becomes clear upon the most cursory analysis. The program divides potential recipients into two groups -- pregnant women and nonpregnant persons. While the first group is exclusively female, the second includes members of both sexes. The fiscal and actuarial benefits of the program thus accrue to members of both sexes."
The parallel text from Skrmetti:
"By the same token, SB1 does not exclude any individual from medical treatments on the basis of transgender status but rather removes one set of diagnoses—gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender incongruence—from the range of treatable conditions. SB1 divides minors into two groups: those who might seek puberty blockers or hormones to treat the excluded diagnoses, and those who might seek puberty blockers or hormones to treat other conditions. See Tenn. Code Ann. §68–33–103. Because only transgender individuals seek puberty blockers and hormones for the excluded diagnoses, the first group includes only transgender individuals; the second group, in contrast, encompasses both transgender and nontransgender individuals. Thus, although only transgender individuals seek treatment for gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender incongruence—just as only biological women can become pregnant—there is a “lack of identity” between transgender status and the excluded medical diagnoses. The plaintiffs, moreover, have not argued that SB1’s prohibitions are mere pretexts designed to effect an invidious discrimination against transgender individuals."
***
So it's not enough to point out "Only one particular group can ever get this diagnosis", you have to ALSO show that the ban on treatment is a facade intended to hide invidious discrimination. That's near impossible to do in the Skrmetti case because the stated purpose of these prohibitions has specifically been for the wellbeing of minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
You're obviously free to disagree that the prohibitions actually help these minors, but that's different from conclusively demonstrating that the prohibitions are actually motivated by discriminatory intent.
Hmm. Doesn't that mean Geduldig is another example of "not guilty by reason of semantics", then?
If all that's required is that there isn't an identity between the nominally targeted group and a sex or other protected class, then semantics can easily be used to smuggle in actions that are, in practice, indistinguishable in effect from forbidden discrimination:
Targeting "gay men" isn't allowed, but targeting "men who have sex with men" is, because some gay men are celibate.
Targeting "women" isn't allowed, but targeting "people with breasts" is, because some women have had mastectomies.
Banning gonadal cancer treatment for women isn't allowed, but banning treatment for ovarian and uterine cancer is, because most women don't have either.
I am curious, based on this analysis, what your take is on Momdani’s (and in his wake, all his supporters) insistence that “Globalize The Intifada” is not a call for violence?
Did you see Cory Robin’s attempt to sanewash it? There are so, so many people on the Left who kept their wits about them during Trump 1.0, who’s opinions I may not agree with but genuinely respect, that have just lost their minds over this one issue.
It's just such a patently nonsensical take. Out of every word you could use for "uprising" or "resistance", they deliberately pick the ONE Arabic word that is inextricably tied with one of the darkest streak of indiscriminate violence against Israeli Jews? It's patronizing to even call this a dog whistle rather than an alarm klaxon.
I didn't come up with this comparison, but imagine if a white dude with a long history of maybe-sorta flirting with white supremacy started saying "The South will rise again!" but then clarified it by claiming "All I really meant by the phrase is that I want to see Southern states move up in economic rankings". That certainly could be a technically true interpretation, but why should anyone believe it?
But also, it’s a power move. By force of will, they’re taking away words that used to easily identify Jews being attacked, or of noble defense against being attacked, and twisted them so that the ignoble words are now placed on Jews, and the noble words placed on their attackers (or ignoble transmuted to noble, as with “Globalize The Intifada”): Genocide, Nazi, Warsaw Ghetto, Globalize The Intifada.
There must be a term for this in the study of rhetoric. All I keep coming up with is the more informal “I know you are, but what am I?”
One reason we don’t bar discrimination against eveners is that nobody does it.
Another reason is that, as Gary Becker noted, in the employment context, discrimination is costly to the company doing it. Discriminating against people born in even numbered years would cut the number of possible employees in half for no corresponding benefit. It would be self-punishing.
Yes indeed! I know about Becker's work in this area and I thought about maybe mentioning it in passing, but eventually decided it was too nuanced to get into. The fact that discrimination imposes a self-inflicted cost is yet another argument against discrimination law from the standpoint of disincentivizing decisions based on "irrelevant" traits. Because why do you need a law to tell employers to pursue their self interest?
(I must preface this by mentioning the old proverb—two Jews, three opinions.)
One Orthodox Jewish approach to religious toleration is that time will tell. We stick to our faith no matter what set of beliefs is currently in vogue. We don't have to fight them. Anything empty will eventually fall.
I don't know, I haven't done a deep dive into the rhetoric or psychology of the crowd.
But to my thought, if a group keeps targeting people who happen to be Jewish and often have the weakest, least convincing arguments as to why this synagogue was actually a bastion of genocidal anti-Palestinian sentiment, and at best only weakly denounce explicitly antisemitic rhetoric... Maybe they're just antisemitic? Either in the sense that Jews just fill them with rage and disgust, or in the sense that they just want to smash and view Jews as acceptable targets.
(Blah blah not all pro-Palestinian activists blah blah throat clearing. I'm still scared when I see someone wearing a kiffieh)
say more, if you don't mind. what is the fault line that this implies may be developing? wokeness? the backlash to same? some secret third social force?
I suppose that's technically true, but then you just have to make a decision about which fault line is more of a priority. After all, the idea of religious tolerance was itself a fault line for the clergy and other die-hard believers.
The fact that Trump supporters are higher in antisemitism than Democrats should cast doubt on the thesis that anti-Zionism is the main cause of the rise in antisemitism. I think the vast overrepresentation of Jews among the leadership class deserves more attention. The hatred directed toward Jews today is a hatred of an upper class -- it's the same hatred that causes people to cheer on the Italian healthcare shooter. This angle isn't new, and it goes back to Der Sieg des Judenthums (1879). Solving antisemitism is a problem of solving middle-class resentment toward the ruling class. Democracy was meant to solve the crisis of monarchism, which was a crisis of authority, and now democracy is going through the same crisis.
If you're not addressing this crisis of authority, you're not going to solve antisemitism, no matter how many times you point out that it is illogical, irrational, or harmful.
Great stuff. I appreciate the effort you're putting into applying rationalist methods to the questions at play. I hope your fellow rationalists are paying attention. I have a theological quibble however (which doesn't detract from your overall point) - the Catholic vs Protestant conflict wasn't over which God they pray to, but instead about who has authority over believers. It's more like the Sunni/Shia split in that sense - truly a struggle for political/secular power as expressed through religious leaders. And the Protestant message that you didn't need a massive ecclesiastical bureaucracy to manage your connection to God ultimately led to western values for individualism and scientific experimentation. But that's a whole other topic. 😊
Thanks man, although it's not really rationalists who need rescuing here! I do intend to make sure the rationalist toolbox gets broader and more approachable applications.
And yes, I know the Catholic/Protestant tiff wasn't about worshipping a different god, and so I used the phrase "fictional entity" specifically because it was broad enough to include disputes over ecclesiastical bureaucracy as well. It takes me a lot of willpower to make sure I don't pepper endless disclaimers and qualifiers within my writing!
Yes, it's hard not to get into disclaimer loops!
I think the antisemitism poll might not be accurate. It's an opt-in online poll.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/05/online-opt-in-polls-can-produce-misleading-results-especially-for-young-people-and-hispanic-adults/
There was another opt-in online poll showing that half of Israeli Jews supported biblical genocide with nonsensical cross tabs - 47% of all Israeli Jews, 30% of Labor supporters, more Masortim and Haredim than Datim supporting it - discussed here: https://archive.is/iJoEJ .
So in general be vary of online opt-in polls. The people just want to click yes yes yes on everything to get the gift card raffle at the end or whatever. You get nonsensical results so do not take them seriously.
I knew about these issues, but David Shor insists on his data's reliability: https://x.com/davidshor/status/1888319931554443455?t=eoI0A4eCFKs5C6DAKp64kw
I'll add a footnote to showcase that there is a dispute at least.
I see. So that’s very different from the garbage Israel survey where they didn’t release the methodology but it was some kind of opt-in online poll and where the results diverged sharply from every reliable poll, and very different from the Holocaust denial survey from Pew where it was some opt-in online poll and again the results diverged sharply from every reliable poll. David Shor actually did work to get rid of the usual mistakes from opt-in online polls, unlike in these two examples.
This is your second article in as many weeks, that I've thoroughly enjoyed!
I feel obligated to nitpick, and state that many religious groups don't actually have any theological obligation to "correct" unbelievers.
Included in this group of religions are bighitters like Buddhism, Sikhi, and somewhat ironically, Judaism.
Of course, a lack of obligation to oppress nonbelievers has never gotten in the way of anyones fun, especially when you can twist your religion to add "perks" like having sex with children into it (which has been depressingly common through Buddhist history, unfortunately).
You're completely right, I was intentionally trying to speak in generalities because I have a bad habit of getting bogged down with persnickety disclaimers that seriously bog down my writing.
Throughout Buddhist history? I understood csa as fallout from a gender-segregated monastic system (that'll do it, in any tradition) in Tibet, is there more?
Yes, unfortunately. It was considered pure to have sex with small children in the Japanese monastic system, since they weren't adults that meant that it wasn't really breaking your celibacy, apparently.
I'm sure there are other examples, but those are the two that immediately spring to mind. Sex abuse seems to be a pretty predictable result of vows of celibacy.
👏 👏 👏
This is a really insightful piece. So well-written and perfectly structured to guide your reader through some fairly complex thoughts without alerting the reader ahead of time exactly where you were headed. Kind of like suspense philosophy 🤔.
Also, I love your ideas about how to correct for past harms by choosing the right targets. And the way you explained why the antizionism/antisemitism thing is a distinction without a difference as well as inappropriate targeting, which I think is close enough to scapegoating that I’ll just keep saying that (but with a more precise meaning).
🙏 🙏 😊
I love the phrase "suspense philosophy"! That describes exactly what I was going for :)
Thanks! You may borrow the phrase anytime!
This is good, and I especially like/endorse citing the post wars-of-religion compromise of tolerance as the basis/history for this.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/07/nyregion/temple-israel-albany-shots-fired.html
This rabbi was a student of mine. Her synagogue was shot at by someone shouting "Free Palestine." One more data point because there's so much of it but it slips through the fingers of our attention spans and memory.
Yes, great example, I added it! It was hard to remember the litany of incidents that had cropped up recently because I didn't start keeping a list until about a month ago.
Right? You got me curious so I did a search and found:
ttps://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/antisemitism-jewish-man-attacked-upper-east-side-new-york-city/ "Police say the suspects yelled "Free Palestine" before punching a 72-year-old Jewish man."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/suspect-accused-stabbing-jewish-man-brooklyn-charged-hate-crimes-rcna166305 "he yelled “Free Palestine” before he slashed a Jewish man in the torso near a synagogue in Brooklyn"
These are great, I included them and gave you credit
"If someone shot up a gay nightclub, their defense of 'I don’t hate gay men per se, only people who attend gay night clubs' would be deemed an unacceptable salami slice."
Something almost exactly like this happened: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_nightclub_shooting
Man swears loyalty to ISIS, shoots up a gay nightclub in Orlando in response to US bombings in the middle east. Said gay club happened to be hosting Latino night that night.
"Two survivors quoted Mateen as saying, 'I don't have a problem with black people,'[32][33] and that he 'wouldn't stop his assault until America stopped bombing his country.'"
I was explicitly thinking about the Pulse nightclub shooting when I wrote that, but I didn't want to do a deep dive into that specific incident. I think it came out during his wife's trial that Mateen was driving around and searching for a random nightclub to target, and that he wasn't pursuing a gay nightclub specifically. Pulse was apparently his second choice, because his first pick apparently had too much security.
Oh, if only everyone was as thoughtful as you are (I don't know you; I"m sure you slip ;) but obviously you try very hard!) Your point about how the spread of terror is such a significant piece of this...not only a consequence but usually a motive..And we know that terror begets more terror. We're living in very precarious times, here in the U.S. and in most places. BTW, I did know that "antisemitic" was really a broader word, and that somehow that got lost.
"If someone shot up a gay nightclub, their defense of 'I don’t hate gay men per se, only people who attend gay night clubs' would be deemed an unacceptable salami slice. [...] We generally disapprove of Not Guilty By Reason of Semantics."
Well... we used to generally disapprove, but is the decision in US v. Skrmetti a sign that that might be changing?
I don't think it's a sign of much, the legal system doesn't really know how to deal with trans identity because there's too many incoherent implications to reconcile. I do believe that Skrmetti is a great illustration of how the search for the essential characteristic is made in vain. Depending on how you slice the salami, it's reasonable to come to completely different conclusions.
Skremetti has zero to do with someone shooting up gay adults in a nightclub. Similarly Queers for Palestine has nothing to do with them caring one bit about Palestine.
Skrmetti has everything to do with the question of whether we "disapprove of Not Guilty By Reason Of Semantics" when it comes to targeting people on the basis of protected characteristics.
The court decided that because Tennessee's law is phrased as banning the use of certain drugs for the treatment of gender dysphoria, it doesn't have to meet the same standard as it would if it were phrased as banning their use by transgender people - even though the effect is the same, because the sets of "people who experience gender dysphoria" and "transgender people" overlap even more than do "men who attend gay nightclubs" and "gay men".
>the sets of "people who experience gender dysphoria" and "transgender people"
I presume that the majority of people who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria identify as trans, but not everyone who identifies as trans has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
Not every gay person goes to nightclubs, but we can still recognize that discrimination against people who go to gay nightclubs is just dressed-up discrimination against gay people.
Likewise, even though not every person who identifies as trans has a gender dysphoria diagnosis, we can still recognize that discrimination against people with GD is just dressed-up discrimination against trans people.
(Besides, we're talking about a medical context, and everyone who's getting transgender-specific medical treatment generally will have a gender dysphoria diagnosis. They have to have *some* kind of diagnosis for billing.)
No, Skremetti is about whether it is safe to permanently mutilate children who at the moment believe themselves to be in the wrong body, rather than temporarily experiencing gender dysphoria or are still (as teens always do) coming to terms with their sexuality. In the past it was okay to figure out that you are gay. For some bizarre reason trans activists are trying to makes the hyper conservative statement that a teen firmly knows these things (false) and that no such sexual preference as gay exists - you’re either straight or in the wrong body.
This was not what the legal case was about.
The Supreme Court didn't rule on the merits of Tennessee's law, they only ruled on what level of scrutiny the law has to meet in order to be constitutional.
Their decision was that, alhough they previously ruled that discrimination based on transgender status is a form of sex discrimination, Tennessee's law doesn't have to meet the usual bar for sex discrimination because it says "gender dysphoria" instead of "transgender".
This is like saying that a ban on treatment for "gonadal cancers in female patients" should be judged by a different standard than a ban on treatment for "ovarian cancer", because one contains the word "female" and the other doesn't, even though they both affect exactly the same people in exactly the same way. In other words, Not Guilty by Reason of Semantics.
As for the argument you're making here about the merits of Tennessee's law... I'll resist the temptation to respond point by point with citations and whatnot, and just say that (1) it bans more than you seem to think it does, and (2) if trans activists are supposed to be claiming there's no such thing as being gay, that news has yet to reach the ACLU, the Human Rights Campaign, and the countless people out there who identify as both gay and trans.
This is not an accurate summary of the Skrmetti case either!
The majority opinion specifically cited Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 484 (1974) that ruled that a program which excluded eligibility on the basis of pregnancy did not count as discrimination on the basis of sex. See footnote 20: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/417/484/#F20
"Absent a showing that distinctions involving pregnancy are mere pretexts designed to effect an invidious discrimination against the members of one sex or the other, lawmakers are constitutionally free to include or exclude pregnancy from the coverage of legislation such as this on any reasonable basis, just as with respect to any other physical condition.
The lack of identity between the excluded disability and gender as such under this insurance program becomes clear upon the most cursory analysis. The program divides potential recipients into two groups -- pregnant women and nonpregnant persons. While the first group is exclusively female, the second includes members of both sexes. The fiscal and actuarial benefits of the program thus accrue to members of both sexes."
The parallel text from Skrmetti:
"By the same token, SB1 does not exclude any individual from medical treatments on the basis of transgender status but rather removes one set of diagnoses—gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender incongruence—from the range of treatable conditions. SB1 divides minors into two groups: those who might seek puberty blockers or hormones to treat the excluded diagnoses, and those who might seek puberty blockers or hormones to treat other conditions. See Tenn. Code Ann. §68–33–103. Because only transgender individuals seek puberty blockers and hormones for the excluded diagnoses, the first group includes only transgender individuals; the second group, in contrast, encompasses both transgender and nontransgender individuals. Thus, although only transgender individuals seek treatment for gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender incongruence—just as only biological women can become pregnant—there is a “lack of identity” between transgender status and the excluded medical diagnoses. The plaintiffs, moreover, have not argued that SB1’s prohibitions are mere pretexts designed to effect an invidious discrimination against transgender individuals."
***
So it's not enough to point out "Only one particular group can ever get this diagnosis", you have to ALSO show that the ban on treatment is a facade intended to hide invidious discrimination. That's near impossible to do in the Skrmetti case because the stated purpose of these prohibitions has specifically been for the wellbeing of minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
You're obviously free to disagree that the prohibitions actually help these minors, but that's different from conclusively demonstrating that the prohibitions are actually motivated by discriminatory intent.
Hmm. Doesn't that mean Geduldig is another example of "not guilty by reason of semantics", then?
If all that's required is that there isn't an identity between the nominally targeted group and a sex or other protected class, then semantics can easily be used to smuggle in actions that are, in practice, indistinguishable in effect from forbidden discrimination:
Targeting "gay men" isn't allowed, but targeting "men who have sex with men" is, because some gay men are celibate.
Targeting "women" isn't allowed, but targeting "people with breasts" is, because some women have had mastectomies.
Banning gonadal cancer treatment for women isn't allowed, but banning treatment for ovarian and uterine cancer is, because most women don't have either.
I am curious, based on this analysis, what your take is on Momdani’s (and in his wake, all his supporters) insistence that “Globalize The Intifada” is not a call for violence?
My take is: LMAOLOLOLOLOL
Did you see Cory Robin’s attempt to sanewash it? There are so, so many people on the Left who kept their wits about them during Trump 1.0, who’s opinions I may not agree with but genuinely respect, that have just lost their minds over this one issue.
It's just such a patently nonsensical take. Out of every word you could use for "uprising" or "resistance", they deliberately pick the ONE Arabic word that is inextricably tied with one of the darkest streak of indiscriminate violence against Israeli Jews? It's patronizing to even call this a dog whistle rather than an alarm klaxon.
I didn't come up with this comparison, but imagine if a white dude with a long history of maybe-sorta flirting with white supremacy started saying "The South will rise again!" but then clarified it by claiming "All I really meant by the phrase is that I want to see Southern states move up in economic rankings". That certainly could be a technically true interpretation, but why should anyone believe it?
But also, it’s a power move. By force of will, they’re taking away words that used to easily identify Jews being attacked, or of noble defense against being attacked, and twisted them so that the ignoble words are now placed on Jews, and the noble words placed on their attackers (or ignoble transmuted to noble, as with “Globalize The Intifada”): Genocide, Nazi, Warsaw Ghetto, Globalize The Intifada.
There must be a term for this in the study of rhetoric. All I keep coming up with is the more informal “I know you are, but what am I?”
I agree, it's dastardly clever
One reason we don’t bar discrimination against eveners is that nobody does it.
Another reason is that, as Gary Becker noted, in the employment context, discrimination is costly to the company doing it. Discriminating against people born in even numbered years would cut the number of possible employees in half for no corresponding benefit. It would be self-punishing.
Yes indeed! I know about Becker's work in this area and I thought about maybe mentioning it in passing, but eventually decided it was too nuanced to get into. The fact that discrimination imposes a self-inflicted cost is yet another argument against discrimination law from the standpoint of disincentivizing decisions based on "irrelevant" traits. Because why do you need a law to tell employers to pursue their self interest?
(I must preface this by mentioning the old proverb—two Jews, three opinions.)
One Orthodox Jewish approach to religious toleration is that time will tell. We stick to our faith no matter what set of beliefs is currently in vogue. We don't have to fight them. Anything empty will eventually fall.
No need for us to do anything.
I don't know, I haven't done a deep dive into the rhetoric or psychology of the crowd.
But to my thought, if a group keeps targeting people who happen to be Jewish and often have the weakest, least convincing arguments as to why this synagogue was actually a bastion of genocidal anti-Palestinian sentiment, and at best only weakly denounce explicitly antisemitic rhetoric... Maybe they're just antisemitic? Either in the sense that Jews just fill them with rage and disgust, or in the sense that they just want to smash and view Jews as acceptable targets.
(Blah blah not all pro-Palestinian activists blah blah throat clearing. I'm still scared when I see someone wearing a kiffieh)
A genuine question. What happens when the rules against aggravating societal fault lines itself becomes a fault line?
I worry that hate crime legislation eventually leads here.
say more, if you don't mind. what is the fault line that this implies may be developing? wokeness? the backlash to same? some secret third social force?
nowadays any enforcement in any direction is considered an attack on some grope in a pattern that drives polarization.
I suppose that's technically true, but then you just have to make a decision about which fault line is more of a priority. After all, the idea of religious tolerance was itself a fault line for the clergy and other die-hard believers.
The fact that Trump supporters are higher in antisemitism than Democrats should cast doubt on the thesis that anti-Zionism is the main cause of the rise in antisemitism. I think the vast overrepresentation of Jews among the leadership class deserves more attention. The hatred directed toward Jews today is a hatred of an upper class -- it's the same hatred that causes people to cheer on the Italian healthcare shooter. This angle isn't new, and it goes back to Der Sieg des Judenthums (1879). Solving antisemitism is a problem of solving middle-class resentment toward the ruling class. Democracy was meant to solve the crisis of monarchism, which was a crisis of authority, and now democracy is going through the same crisis.
If you're not addressing this crisis of authority, you're not going to solve antisemitism, no matter how many times you point out that it is illogical, irrational, or harmful.
In what sense are we over represented? Would you ever say racism is caused by African-American “over representation”in the NBA?
The fact that you are willing to even ask the question "how are Jews over represented?" demonstrates your lack of seriousness and honesty.