I guess I just don't understand the definition of "woke." All those things you listed are what I consider to be necessary, standard conservative positions. I consider myself to be neither a democrat, nor a republican, but rather an independant, middle-of-the-road kind of guy. I have what some people would consider to be conservative opinions and I also have what some would consider to be liberal positions. I think of "woke" as being someone who has embraced the cult dogma of transgenderism. They want any man who says he is a woman to be considered to be a woman. He can then gain access to women's spaces in sports, restroom facitlies, and even prisons. Many of my friends and aquaintences in the Fort Worth, Texas area where I live think the same. We have had many discussions about all of this. We are not all in agreement, but we actually listen to and think about the other guy's opinion. "Woke," to me, also means having to hire by ethnicity rather than experience and qualification, and having to call someone by their "preferred pronouns." I haven't been to Houston in many years; so perhaps the general thinking there is not the same as it is here in North Texas.
Actually, you are right. Nothing that I endorsed should be objectionable to a conservative. What we have now is an extreme radicalization of the right so that conservatives such as David Brooks would probably be called "woke." If everyone non-MAGA is to be called "woke," then let me put out the welcome mat for moderates and real conservatives.
Good to read this elaboration, Keith. I agree with Blase's comment, and am considered a conservative by most who know me. Where I don't fit is that I'm an old school feminist (anti-patriarchy), and am a liberal on sexual preferences. But the trans woman points Blasé makes are spot on. A small minority shouldn't be permitted to wag the dog of the majority in society. I fully agree with you on the merit system. As to minority preferences, white males are a minority of humans. White females and people of color (black/brown/tan/yellow/red) outnumber them. Using skin color or ethnicity as a deciding factor is discrimination!
Please do not forget that the majority of people who benefit from DEI are white males with disabilitites, many of whom are veterans. To suggest that DEI only lifts UNQUALIFIED individuals, is to misunderstand everything about DEI.
Right. There is an analog indicator pointing up the middle where I am, but someone has twisted the dial full right; so now the needle is pointed to the left.
Yes! "Old school feminist." I like that. I have nothing but pity and compassion for those people who have gender dysphoria, but science is science. The small mobile gamete producer is male, and the large immobile gamete producer is the female. This is true for all animals and vascular plants. I think many of those people questioning their sexuality are being demonized because of their homosexuality. God says homosexuality is not only wrong, but Evil. So they say: "I'm not one of those evil homosexuals, I'm a woman trapped in a man's body," or the other way around.
This is not a simple issue. It reminds me of the proverb about the blind men describing an elephant: each touches a different part—the trunk, the ear, the leg—and each forms a different but incomplete picture. So it is with human biology and identity. We can describe what makes someone biologically “male” or “female,” and note how humans share patterns with other animals and even plants. But when it comes to understanding why more people are seeking to transition, science alone doesn’t yet offer a complete explanation.
As James suggests, for some, social pressures—especially the demonization of homosexuality by religious or cultural forces—may contribute. That could be one factor among many. Anyone who studies human behavior knows that our experiences are complex and rarely explained by a single cause. What is clear is that we have much to learn.
What I do know is that defining a person solely by the size of their gametes doesn’t begin to capture the lived experience of someone with gender dysphoria—or of those who have identified as another gender from early childhood. Not everyone who transitions is in crisis or struggling with mental illness. Human identity and biology are deeply intertwined, but not synonymous.
Yes, we don't yet have a complete explanation for gender dysphoria, but in the case of adults it IS a mental illness. Children, however, don't yet have fully formed prefrontal lobes, and don't have the capacity for higher brain functioning. They are still learning and questioning everything. They explore their own sexuality with their own sex as well as with the opposite sex. This does not mean they are homosexual or heterosexual; they are still too young to tell. They do not, on their own, decide they want to be that other sex. They are pushed into it by adults. There are many stories on YouTube and elsewhere on the internet of children de-transitioning after growing older, but the puberty blockers have already permanently damaged their reproductive organs. As far as "the lived experience," what clothes one wears or what jewelry or what hairstyle one chooses is irrelevent to being male or female. It is physically, medically impossible to graft a penis on a woman or transplant a uterus into a man. If one is born with a uterus, one is female; if one is born with a penis and testicles, one is male. Anyone thinking otherwise has a psychological disorder.
--Being transgender is not a mental illness. Major medical and psychiatric organizations state that a transgender identity is not a disorder in itself.
--Gender dysphoria is a diagnosable condition. It refers to the psychological distress caused by a mismatch between a person's sex assigned at birth and their gender identity.
--Not all transgender people have gender dysphoria. Some transgender individuals may not experience significant distress.
Gender dysphoria is not the same as being transgender. The distress is a result of the incongruence, and medical guidance often focuses on helping the individual align their life with their gender identity through social, hormonal, or surgical transition.
Societal factors and mental health
--Discrimination and stigma lead to mental health struggles. The higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidality among transgender people are often linked to experiences of stigma, violence, rejection, and discrimination.
--Lack of support worsens outcomes. Rejection from family, friends, and community can contribute to poor mental health, while acceptance and support can lead to healthier lives.
--Access to care is a challenge. Difficulty accessing appropriate healthcare and insurance coverage for transition-related services can also be a source of stress.
Original meaning and evolution Awareness of social injustice: The term's roots are in African American communities, where it was used to describe someone who is alert to racism and discrimination.
Broader social issues: Its use expanded to include a broader awareness of social inequalities related to sexism, LGBTQ+ rights, and other systemic issues.
Political usage: The term gained significant popularity in the 2010s with the Black Lives Matter movement, where it was used as a rallying cry.
Modern and contrasting uses Pejorative: "Woke" is now frequently used as a derogatory term, particularly by conservatives, to mock or criticize progressive political beliefs, often associated with identity politics and social justice.
Perceived extremism: In a negative context, it can be used to describe what some perceive as an extreme or overly sensitive liberal orthodoxy.
"Performative activism": The term is sometimes used sarcastically to suggest that someone is only pretending to hold certain beliefs about social issues for the sake of appearance, notes Merriam-Webster.
It would be fun to go through your list of "woke" opinions or behaviors. I think it's best to call those out, rather than assume "woke" encompasses them all.
Hello Debbie. Thanks for posting this. Yes, to perfectly communicate with someone everyone has to be speaking the same language. "Woke" clearly has different meanings to different people. I have been castigated by some for not being "woke" and by some others for being "woke." Just one more reason to hate labels. To borrow a phrase from Woody Allen(I think): It has become a mystery wrapped in a conundrum.
I agree. Labels are too easy to fling, and they can quickly stop constructive conversations. The way people use "woke" has become an easy way for me to assess where someone might be "coming from," but unfortunately, I could be mistaken. I prefer longer conversations so that I can learn something ... even from people I disagree with, or perhaps especially from them.
“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” John Stuart Mill
“'Woke'” is to today’s right as “communist” was in the fifties." ⬅️ I would go even further: Woke is to today's right as the "n-word" was when it became the most potent racial insult in English, a slur symbolizing centuries of dehumanization, enslavement, segregation, and violence.
I think you have a point. Christian nationalists literally demonize liberals. Those who oppose them are servants of Satan, so no vilification is too vile.
As a non-believer, I have been invited to church numerous times by Christian friends and family who hope I'll convert. I have never heard such hate toward atheists as I have on Sundays during a religious service.
Their Bibles must have a verse I cannot find in any of my copies: "Love thy neighbor, unless he disagreeth with thee. Then shouldst thou loath him utterly and load him with imprecations"
So we should choose based on height? IF a particular group has been systematically under- or un- represented, and if including some from that group can be done WITHOUT compromising anyone's qualifications, is that harmful?
How is it racist? I said that not every recognition of race is racist. You deny this, but give no reason. My reason for asserting is twofold: (1) Historically, recognition of race has been racist and used to discriminate and oppress. To correct those situations, often race has to be taken into consideration. Thus, when gerrymandering deprives African-Americans of effective representation, courts have correctly ordered the creation of more black-majority congressional districts. (2) Diversity has value. I was fortunate enough to have professors of ethnicities other than my own. Their differences in experience and culture added depth and dimension that a professor of my ethnicity, however brilliant, could not have contributed. Diversity is not of sufficient value to qualify someone unqualified, but it could rightly give the edge to someone fully qualified.
To clarify, I was only answering yes to the question, with the "it" being "to give the nod to a minority". It is de facto racist because you are using race to make a decision -- you are descriminating by race. That's not a moral judgment, just a fact. Whether it is positive or negative racism, well that's a subjective decision, I suppose.
I think I'd prefer to be judged by the content of character over color of skin. Using race as a heuristic for "who deserves superior treatment" is super dicey. A veritable slippery slope that leads to certain kind of tyranny (we're living through a backlash to the tyranny of the woke Left--it's an over correction for sure but directionally correct).
And anyway, who's to be the moral decider of the right amount of "correction" that is "right" for society?
No, I'd rather it just not be a factor. We need to be color blind, the way that Coleman Hughes argues.
To say that something is "racist" is automatically and inevitably to imply a moral judgment, like saying that someone or something is "sexist" or "antisemitic." To say that employment of the term is morally neutral is to commit semantic sin. Unlike Alice's Humpty Dumpty, we cannot make words mean what we want them to mean. Words are public property. As far as I can see, your only counter to my claim that recognition of race is sometimes salutary is to say that it puts us on a "slippery slope." How much "correction" is right? Well, that is something we can debate. What I think is beyond debate is that redress of racial oppression can only be achieved by sometimes taking race into consideration. I would love to see a debate between Ibram X. Kendi and Coleman Hughes. In general, I would favor Hughes, and support color blindness as an ideal, but even the most glowing ideals require modification under circumstances.
Thanks for sharing this, Ed. I'm old-time "woke". Here's an easy-to-find AI-generated definition of woke, and how the meaning has evolved over time:
Original meaning and evolution
Awareness of social injustice: The term's roots are in African American communities, where it was used to describe someone alert to racism and discrimination.
Broader social issues: Its use expanded to encompass greater awareness of social inequalities related to sexism, LGBTQ+ rights, and other systemic issues.
Political usage: The term gained significant popularity in the 2010s during the Black Lives Matter movement, where it served as a rallying cry.
Modern and contrasting uses
Pejorative: "Woke" is now frequently used as a derogatory term, particularly by conservatives, to mock or criticize progressive political beliefs, often associated with identity politics and social justice.
Perceived extremism: In a negative context, it can be used to describe what some perceive as an extreme or overly sensitive liberal orthodoxy.
"Performative activism": The term is sometimes used sarcastically to suggest that someone is only pretending to hold certain beliefs about social issues for the sake of appearance, notes Merriam-Webster.
I guess I just don't understand the definition of "woke." All those things you listed are what I consider to be necessary, standard conservative positions. I consider myself to be neither a democrat, nor a republican, but rather an independant, middle-of-the-road kind of guy. I have what some people would consider to be conservative opinions and I also have what some would consider to be liberal positions. I think of "woke" as being someone who has embraced the cult dogma of transgenderism. They want any man who says he is a woman to be considered to be a woman. He can then gain access to women's spaces in sports, restroom facitlies, and even prisons. Many of my friends and aquaintences in the Fort Worth, Texas area where I live think the same. We have had many discussions about all of this. We are not all in agreement, but we actually listen to and think about the other guy's opinion. "Woke," to me, also means having to hire by ethnicity rather than experience and qualification, and having to call someone by their "preferred pronouns." I haven't been to Houston in many years; so perhaps the general thinking there is not the same as it is here in North Texas.
Actually, you are right. Nothing that I endorsed should be objectionable to a conservative. What we have now is an extreme radicalization of the right so that conservatives such as David Brooks would probably be called "woke." If everyone non-MAGA is to be called "woke," then let me put out the welcome mat for moderates and real conservatives.
Good to read this elaboration, Keith. I agree with Blase's comment, and am considered a conservative by most who know me. Where I don't fit is that I'm an old school feminist (anti-patriarchy), and am a liberal on sexual preferences. But the trans woman points Blasé makes are spot on. A small minority shouldn't be permitted to wag the dog of the majority in society. I fully agree with you on the merit system. As to minority preferences, white males are a minority of humans. White females and people of color (black/brown/tan/yellow/red) outnumber them. Using skin color or ethnicity as a deciding factor is discrimination!
Please do not forget that the majority of people who benefit from DEI are white males with disabilitites, many of whom are veterans. To suggest that DEI only lifts UNQUALIFIED individuals, is to misunderstand everything about DEI.
Your comment and James's make me ponder who really is a conservative now??? I think I will comment on this in a future Letter.
Right. There is an analog indicator pointing up the middle where I am, but someone has twisted the dial full right; so now the needle is pointed to the left.
Yes! "Old school feminist." I like that. I have nothing but pity and compassion for those people who have gender dysphoria, but science is science. The small mobile gamete producer is male, and the large immobile gamete producer is the female. This is true for all animals and vascular plants. I think many of those people questioning their sexuality are being demonized because of their homosexuality. God says homosexuality is not only wrong, but Evil. So they say: "I'm not one of those evil homosexuals, I'm a woman trapped in a man's body," or the other way around.
This is not a simple issue. It reminds me of the proverb about the blind men describing an elephant: each touches a different part—the trunk, the ear, the leg—and each forms a different but incomplete picture. So it is with human biology and identity. We can describe what makes someone biologically “male” or “female,” and note how humans share patterns with other animals and even plants. But when it comes to understanding why more people are seeking to transition, science alone doesn’t yet offer a complete explanation.
As James suggests, for some, social pressures—especially the demonization of homosexuality by religious or cultural forces—may contribute. That could be one factor among many. Anyone who studies human behavior knows that our experiences are complex and rarely explained by a single cause. What is clear is that we have much to learn.
What I do know is that defining a person solely by the size of their gametes doesn’t begin to capture the lived experience of someone with gender dysphoria—or of those who have identified as another gender from early childhood. Not everyone who transitions is in crisis or struggling with mental illness. Human identity and biology are deeply intertwined, but not synonymous.
Yes, we don't yet have a complete explanation for gender dysphoria, but in the case of adults it IS a mental illness. Children, however, don't yet have fully formed prefrontal lobes, and don't have the capacity for higher brain functioning. They are still learning and questioning everything. They explore their own sexuality with their own sex as well as with the opposite sex. This does not mean they are homosexual or heterosexual; they are still too young to tell. They do not, on their own, decide they want to be that other sex. They are pushed into it by adults. There are many stories on YouTube and elsewhere on the internet of children de-transitioning after growing older, but the puberty blockers have already permanently damaged their reproductive organs. As far as "the lived experience," what clothes one wears or what jewelry or what hairstyle one chooses is irrelevent to being male or female. It is physically, medically impossible to graft a penis on a woman or transplant a uterus into a man. If one is born with a uterus, one is female; if one is born with a penis and testicles, one is male. Anyone thinking otherwise has a psychological disorder.
Being transgender vs. gender dysphoria
--Being transgender is not a mental illness. Major medical and psychiatric organizations state that a transgender identity is not a disorder in itself.
--Gender dysphoria is a diagnosable condition. It refers to the psychological distress caused by a mismatch between a person's sex assigned at birth and their gender identity.
--Not all transgender people have gender dysphoria. Some transgender individuals may not experience significant distress.
Gender dysphoria is not the same as being transgender. The distress is a result of the incongruence, and medical guidance often focuses on helping the individual align their life with their gender identity through social, hormonal, or surgical transition.
Societal factors and mental health
--Discrimination and stigma lead to mental health struggles. The higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidality among transgender people are often linked to experiences of stigma, violence, rejection, and discrimination.
--Lack of support worsens outcomes. Rejection from family, friends, and community can contribute to poor mental health, while acceptance and support can lead to healthier lives.
--Access to care is a challenge. Difficulty accessing appropriate healthcare and insurance coverage for transition-related services can also be a source of stress.
Hi James. I just posted this:
Original meaning and evolution Awareness of social injustice: The term's roots are in African American communities, where it was used to describe someone who is alert to racism and discrimination.
Broader social issues: Its use expanded to include a broader awareness of social inequalities related to sexism, LGBTQ+ rights, and other systemic issues.
Political usage: The term gained significant popularity in the 2010s with the Black Lives Matter movement, where it was used as a rallying cry.
Modern and contrasting uses Pejorative: "Woke" is now frequently used as a derogatory term, particularly by conservatives, to mock or criticize progressive political beliefs, often associated with identity politics and social justice.
Perceived extremism: In a negative context, it can be used to describe what some perceive as an extreme or overly sensitive liberal orthodoxy.
"Performative activism": The term is sometimes used sarcastically to suggest that someone is only pretending to hold certain beliefs about social issues for the sake of appearance, notes Merriam-Webster.
It would be fun to go through your list of "woke" opinions or behaviors. I think it's best to call those out, rather than assume "woke" encompasses them all.
Hello Debbie. Thanks for posting this. Yes, to perfectly communicate with someone everyone has to be speaking the same language. "Woke" clearly has different meanings to different people. I have been castigated by some for not being "woke" and by some others for being "woke." Just one more reason to hate labels. To borrow a phrase from Woody Allen(I think): It has become a mystery wrapped in a conundrum.
I agree. Labels are too easy to fling, and they can quickly stop constructive conversations. The way people use "woke" has become an easy way for me to assess where someone might be "coming from," but unfortunately, I could be mistaken. I prefer longer conversations so that I can learn something ... even from people I disagree with, or perhaps especially from them.
“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” John Stuart Mill
“'Woke'” is to today’s right as “communist” was in the fifties." ⬅️ I would go even further: Woke is to today's right as the "n-word" was when it became the most potent racial insult in English, a slur symbolizing centuries of dehumanization, enslavement, segregation, and violence.
I think you have a point. Christian nationalists literally demonize liberals. Those who oppose them are servants of Satan, so no vilification is too vile.
As a non-believer, I have been invited to church numerous times by Christian friends and family who hope I'll convert. I have never heard such hate toward atheists as I have on Sundays during a religious service.
Their Bibles must have a verse I cannot find in any of my copies: "Love thy neighbor, unless he disagreeth with thee. Then shouldst thou loath him utterly and load him with imprecations"
Perfect! Sharing to Facebook.
Awesome piece. Thank you.
"In this case, where there is parity of quality, is it racist to give the nod to a minority candidate? Not every recognition of race is racist."
Yes, it is racist.
Find some other characteristic to break the tie.
So we should choose based on height? IF a particular group has been systematically under- or un- represented, and if including some from that group can be done WITHOUT compromising anyone's qualifications, is that harmful?
How is it racist? I said that not every recognition of race is racist. You deny this, but give no reason. My reason for asserting is twofold: (1) Historically, recognition of race has been racist and used to discriminate and oppress. To correct those situations, often race has to be taken into consideration. Thus, when gerrymandering deprives African-Americans of effective representation, courts have correctly ordered the creation of more black-majority congressional districts. (2) Diversity has value. I was fortunate enough to have professors of ethnicities other than my own. Their differences in experience and culture added depth and dimension that a professor of my ethnicity, however brilliant, could not have contributed. Diversity is not of sufficient value to qualify someone unqualified, but it could rightly give the edge to someone fully qualified.
To clarify, I was only answering yes to the question, with the "it" being "to give the nod to a minority". It is de facto racist because you are using race to make a decision -- you are descriminating by race. That's not a moral judgment, just a fact. Whether it is positive or negative racism, well that's a subjective decision, I suppose.
I think I'd prefer to be judged by the content of character over color of skin. Using race as a heuristic for "who deserves superior treatment" is super dicey. A veritable slippery slope that leads to certain kind of tyranny (we're living through a backlash to the tyranny of the woke Left--it's an over correction for sure but directionally correct).
And anyway, who's to be the moral decider of the right amount of "correction" that is "right" for society?
No, I'd rather it just not be a factor. We need to be color blind, the way that Coleman Hughes argues.
To say that something is "racist" is automatically and inevitably to imply a moral judgment, like saying that someone or something is "sexist" or "antisemitic." To say that employment of the term is morally neutral is to commit semantic sin. Unlike Alice's Humpty Dumpty, we cannot make words mean what we want them to mean. Words are public property. As far as I can see, your only counter to my claim that recognition of race is sometimes salutary is to say that it puts us on a "slippery slope." How much "correction" is right? Well, that is something we can debate. What I think is beyond debate is that redress of racial oppression can only be achieved by sometimes taking race into consideration. I would love to see a debate between Ibram X. Kendi and Coleman Hughes. In general, I would favor Hughes, and support color blindness as an ideal, but even the most glowing ideals require modification under circumstances.
Thanks for the lecture, prof. Lol. I calls it like I see it. Affirmative action is racist. Period.
Ha Ha! Yeah, my default response is to lapse into professor mode.
Thanks for sharing this, Ed. I'm old-time "woke". Here's an easy-to-find AI-generated definition of woke, and how the meaning has evolved over time:
Original meaning and evolution
Awareness of social injustice: The term's roots are in African American communities, where it was used to describe someone alert to racism and discrimination.
Broader social issues: Its use expanded to encompass greater awareness of social inequalities related to sexism, LGBTQ+ rights, and other systemic issues.
Political usage: The term gained significant popularity in the 2010s during the Black Lives Matter movement, where it served as a rallying cry.
Modern and contrasting uses
Pejorative: "Woke" is now frequently used as a derogatory term, particularly by conservatives, to mock or criticize progressive political beliefs, often associated with identity politics and social justice.
Perceived extremism: In a negative context, it can be used to describe what some perceive as an extreme or overly sensitive liberal orthodoxy.
"Performative activism": The term is sometimes used sarcastically to suggest that someone is only pretending to hold certain beliefs about social issues for the sake of appearance, notes Merriam-Webster.
A few thoughts on Jennifer Welch: https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/the-limousine-liberal-syndrome-strikes
?????
Jennifer Welch is not mentioned in the piece. I don't see the relevance.