Four men and four women who think they’re men discuss masculinity

William passed along a video of four men and four women who think they’re men discussing masculinity. (What a weird world we live in!) I had a slow morning, so I watched it.

One interesting element was the generational difference on the trans side. The older “trans man” (i.e., a woman who presents as a man) had much more reasonable views than the younger ones.

For example, the older one was against any form of medical transitioning for children, but did believe in social transitioning — i.e., if you’re a girl who thinks she’s a boy, living as a boy.

I think that’s a matter of degree. A girl who is a tomboy is a different thing than a girl who wants to be called Dave and “he” and wants people to believe she is a boy.

But at least the older one was against giving kids drugs and chopping off pieces of their bodies. It’s almost unbelievable that anybody thinks that’s a good idea.

“Being vulnerable” is not a virtue

I’m sick of the emasculating BS I keep hearing in this dysfunctional hellhole we live in. E.g., that “being vulnerable” is some sort of virtue. E.g., “I’m being vulnerable. You must pay attention and give me kudos and hugs and likes.”

Sorry.

That would be like saying “retreating is a virtue.” Or “quitting is a virtue.” Or “asking for help” is a virtue.

No. None of those things are virtues.

They’re the right decision in particular cases, but they are not “virtues.”

A virtue is something that displays moral excellence. Retreating, being vulnerable, quitting, or asking for help may be tactically wise, or appropriate in some cases. But you can’t fit it into a statement like this.

“He’s _____. We should respect that.”

E.g.,

  • He’s retreating. We should respect that.
  • He’s being vulnerable. We should respect that.
  • He’s asking for help. We should respect that.

No. No. No. We could just as well say …

  • “He’s retreating, let’s destroy the coward.”
  • “He’s being vulnerable. What a pussy.”
  • “He’s asking for help. He should figure it out on this own.”

I understand that people are reacting against the (allegedly dominant) macho man stereotype, and are trying to reinforce that men can cry, be vulnerable, etc. Okay. Fine.

That doesn’t mean we applaud every time a man cries. Sometimes he needs to grow a pair.

If Trump is guilty of something, send him to jail

But the idea that the FBI can raid a former president’s home (and a former president who is very likely to run again) sounds too much like Banana Republic territory, where the regime in power sends the law after its opponents.

Based on what I’ve heard, the FBI only needed a signature from “a federal judge.” That doesn’t sound like a high enough barrier. I would think that separation of powers would require something like this to get approval from SCOTUS.

I know people will say “Trump is not above the law.” No, he’s not. But there’s more at stake here than just Trump the citizen.

It sounds as if the FBI is getting a bit raid-happy as a general matter, which is something Congress should look into. But raiding a former president’s home? That is a big deal.