Who's nice? Who cares!

Most people are 'nice'. At least that's what most people would have you believe. People on both sides of the American political landscape can be nice. People from various religions, ethnicities, and cultures can be friendly and welcoming. Even when neo-nazis clashed with counter-protesters in Charlottesville it was said there were fine people on both sides. So if there are so many perfectly fine and nice people all around, why are we so angry with each other?

A lot of the problem lies in how you define nice. I grew up in Minnesota, where people are famous for being 'Minnesota nice'. To people from elsewhere that means Minnesotans are friendly and welcoming and always have nice things to say. But if you live in Minnesota and are honest about it, it means people are afraid of confrontation. Minnesota nice means you never say anything bad to someone's face - but you certainly talk smack about them behind their back. Minnesota nice means you smile and serve dinner to family and don't interrupt your racist uncle from spewing hatred at the table (maybe his grandparents were from Wisconsin or something). Minnesota nice means you welcome in refugees but later complain about how our 'society' is getting worse - but they make sure not to specify it's the people with dark skin they think are the problem. Minnesota nice reflects the problem and distinction that needs to be made: people are mostly nice in person, face to face, but what they think, how they act, and especially how they vote can be very different.

It's nice if your MAGA-loving neighbor helps you cut up the tree that fell in your yard during a big storm. But are they really 'nice' if they want to ban Muslims from coming into this country? It's nice that your rich uncle helps you get a good summer job during college. But is it nice that he donates to Super PACs which support candidates who want to eliminate our social safety net so we can cut capital gains taxes? It's nice that Dorothy at the super market checkout smiles at everyone and helps organize food drives at church. But is it nice she votes for Congressmen who want to restrict women's bodily autonomy and repeal the right to gay marriage?

If you judge peoples' niceness by how they treat you personally, then most people are pretty nice (especially if you're a white person like most other people are in this country). But if you judge people on their votes and their actions and how those things affect the disadvantaged and minorities in our society, then you get a completely different picture. People can be nice and yet filled with hate. People can be nice, yet still take pleasure in the suffering of others. People can be nice and yet do nothing as evil happens in the world. When it comes to politics, nice and good are very different measures.

So how should we define nice? Maybe we shouldn't worry about it. Maybe we should stop trying to define people and only worry about their actions and how we respond. We don't need to demonize people who are trying to subvert democracy, enshrine bigotry into law, and maintain the systemic racism throughout our institutions and society. But we do need to fight them. And we don't need to be nice about it. We just need to be right.

Team Peace

One of the most pervasive and problematic aspects of American politics is the viewing of everything through the sports lens. From horse-race election coverage to the red team against blue team mentality, Americans think of politics like a sports game when nothing could be further from the truth. Politics, in essence, is a conglomeration of diverse people with diverse opinions working towards consensus built around fundamental equalities. The us vs. them mindset is both structural from our two-party system and evolutionary from our tribal ancestry. But it leads to bizarre, illogical outcomes.

The current Israeli-Palestine conflict is a perfect and sad demonstration. Both Democrats and Republicans have generally sided with Israel quite explicitly. But a significant portion of the far right has long been antisemitic. And the far left is extremely pro-Palestine. So are the raging liberals and neo-nazis on the same team? Are mainstream D's and R's united? Everyone seems angry and certain the other side is wrong even if they don't really know who or what the other side is. And very clearly, there is no rational discussion with consistent logic intended to solve the problem. We just want to beat the other team, even if it's only by yelling louder. 

But if you step away from the two-side fallacy, things become much clearer. If your goal is peace and you want to prevent people from dying, then analysis is easier. Hamas killing 1,500 Israeli civilians is bad - an atrocity. Israel killing 10,000 Palestinian civilians is bad - an atrocity. If it's wrong for Hamas to deny Israel's right to exist, it's wrong for Israel to deny Palestine's actual existence. I believe we should start by acknowledging Palestinians are human beings who deserve a right to live free from violence with political self-determination and autonomy just as much as Israelis are human beings who deserve a right to live free from violence with political self-determination and autonomy. Both sides are right. Both sides are wrong. The only thing that matters is how to move forward towards a better future.

And the only path to peace is with a Palestinian state. If Israel deserves to exist, so does Palestine. If Israeli's deserve a representative government and a military to protect their country, then Palestinians do too. It's the only logically consistent solution. And Israel is the team that currently has the power to allow such a solution. They have the ball. The Israeli government is the only democratically elected entity, governed by a constitution and subject to international law, that is preventing such a solution. Instead, Israel operates an apartheid state that denies fundamental rights to a large population living under its control, and such a regime only perpetuates violence on all sides. A two-state solution will not guarantee peace. Nothing will do that. But it's the onlysolution that offers peace as a possibility, and the only thing that is fair.

The alternative is genocide. Israel can simply annex the occupied territories (which it has been doing piecemeal over the last thirty years) and either expel or exterminate the Palestinians. I guess some would call that an Israeli win. While it would end the current two-side debate and fighting, I think we can all agree it would not be a lasting peace and would only create a larger fight between more nation-states. There is no real win for Israel without a win for Palestinians. This is not a game. Don't think about which side wins, but how to prevent all deaths and preserve all life. Peace should be the goal for everyone.

What is a Public School?

 A lot of the political divisions in our country are based around large, national questions: who do you want for President? Should the U.S. support Ukraine? Should our government provide a safety net? Most of these issues are covered by the news media so people can hear about them easily if they wish, and often even if they don't want to. And it doesn't take a lot of effort to weigh in on them - just cast a vote every couple of years. But local issues - issues that really affect people's daily lives and can change the structure of our society - those issues are often invisible in the background and take a lot of sustained effort to understand and affect.

If there is one idea in our liberal democracy that holds true to the purported ideals of our nation's founding - equality and opportunity for all - it is the public education system. There is no better way to level the playing field so naturally distorted in a capitalistic society; no clearer signal that every child deserves a chance at a bright future; no system more geared towards true meritocracy. Providing a good, free education for everyone is the cornerstone of what America thinks it is and has the opportunity to become. But that very notion is under threat.

For the very notion of a public school is dependent on the idea of serving the public, which by definition must include everyone. There is no more insidious threat to the public than the exclusion of some people from the definition. And that is exactly what some groups in this country are attempting to do.

While no one may be trying to ban actual individuals from attending public schools, by restricting what is taught, who it's taught to, and who can be represented and acknowledged on campus, certain identities are being restricted. And if someone knows their identity is not fully accepted, then they are no longer welcome or equal. It's discrimination. It cannot be allowed to continue.

If you tell black children that their history can't be taught, not because it's not true, but because that truth might upset white children, then you are telling black children they are lesser than white children. If you can't allow a teacher to acknowledge they are gay, then you are telling the child with gay parents they come from a lesser home and that their parents are not equal. If you ban books featuring minority characters, even if it's just a purple shadow, you are telling all the students that some colors don't matter - some children don't matter. If you do not explicitly offer dignity, humanity, and equality to all of the members of a community, then you have expressly condoned a hierarchy that says some are better than others. And there are always those who will take advantage of that opportunity to spell out who is who.

A public education has to be for all of the public. It has to teach inclusivity and acceptance, even if that is divisive to some, because the only alternative is discrimination, which is unacceptable to the principles of our society. Public school is for all the public, or else it will once again become an institution of segregation and shame. We've made the mistake before and have corrected it. We can't let a vocal minority drag us back to repeat our own failings. Now is the time to show up and stand up for what's right. 

And doing what's right takes getting involved. Showing up at school board meetings. Telling some of your neighbors they are wrong. Telling all the marginalized kids they are right. It requires bringing politics into your local life because it's already there whether you want to admit it or not. If the greater public doesn't support a truly public education system, then we have failed our future generations and our country will fail because of it.

Fair and Equitable

 As a well-educated, upper-middle-class, liberal, white person who knows a lot of other similarly described people, I've noticed a consistent theme in arguments regarding social and economic justice. They push back against any idea of change by pointing out, often quite correctly, how the new laws/regulations/attitudes will result in an unfair situation. Affirmative Action hurts Asian Americans. The MeToo movement results in some innocent men being harmed (financially). We can't decrease racial disparity at the expense of higher overall crime rates. We can't (shouldn't) change the status quo in a way that results in a new type of inequity.

But if you think about it: why not? Those very same liberals will readily admit the status quo is not fair. They decry the racism in our country and want to change. They feel for other marginalized groups and will attend a rally and carry a big sign to prove it. They know things are wrong and should be fixed. But they will fight any change that fixes one problem by creating another - because that new problem might actually affect them.

But if one group has held the advantage in an unfair situation for many generations, isn't it better to switch it up and let the disadvantaged people have power for a while? If your older brother hogged the Nintendo console for a whole weekend, isn't it fair that you get to have it all to yourself the next weekend? Isn't inequity fairer when the victims are rotated instead of locked on the same groups all the time?

I mean, I also would like a world that is perfectly fair and equal to everyone everywhere all the time. And such a world might be possible. But to hold up any change in this world in the name of only moving towards a theoretical perfection (which cannot be universally agreed upon) ends up looking like a bunch of privileged folks not willing to give up their privilege. I get it. I, too, would rather not live in a world where I am accosted for my skin color; where I face heavier policing of my public interactions as well as my personal life. I'd rather not be poorer than my neighbors and given less chance to improve my situation. I don't want to be discriminated against, prejudged, or needlessly killed by the state and society. But if that's the price I (we) must pay to create a better world for those who are currently suffering under the yolk of my privilege, I  have to admit it would be only fair.

The Transgender Athlete Question

 I’ve seen a lot of folks say they accept and support transgender people but they still don’t feel it’s right to allow them to compete in athletics. A lot of these people are kind and considerate folks who genuinely want to be accepting and compassionate, and I think their position comes from ignorance and not malice. I think their logic is unsound and if they'd be open to deliberate and thoughtful discussion of the topic they might well realize their mistake. It’s easy to rely on our feelings or the words of someone else when we don’t really have the background or desire to dig deeper into an issue. But the only compassionate route is to take the time to think a little deeper about an issue that affects the basic humanity of a group of people, even if that group represents a small percentage of the population.

The argument normally comes down to this: men clearly have a biological advantage in sports, so it’s unfair for transgender women to compete against cis women. Sounds reasonable but it fails on measured reflection. First, we let people with biological advantages compete all the time. We let tall people play basketball. We admire swimmers with abnormally long arm spans. We let people who grew up at high elevation run against those born at sea level. Some men and women have naturally higher testosterone levels. Sports is never a biologically level playing field so why is it an automatic disqualifier in this one instance?

And whether or not transgender women have a biological advantage is much in dispute. Transgender women only compete in sports after they have transitioned. And while the definition and rules vary by sport, it’s very clear transgender women athletes are no longer biologically the same as male athletes. All the evidence I’ve been able to find, including all the anecdotes put forward, show that transgender women lose most, if not all, of their biological advantages in the transition. (If you don't believe this, do the research yourself instead of assuming you know it already.) So how is it right to exclude a group - a very small group - of people on the basis that they might possibly have some (probably) small degree of biological advantage? 

On the other side of the coin, we have a ton of evidence that excluding transgender people from parts of our society does great harm to them. They face much higher rates of violence and abuse. They are discriminated against in jobs and schools. They are far more likely to have suicidal thoughts and actions. We have direct evidence these harms come from societal perceptions and treatment and when transgender people are met with acceptance and opportunity they fair better. We also have a ton of evidence that participation in sports provides such acceptance and support and leads to better mental health among all populations.

As I said, it’s okay to be uncertain. It’s okay to not understand transgenderism and not know where to draw what line. It’s okay to ask questions and to try to learn more. But it seems like a clear choice that if we are to err due to our ignorance and uncertainty on the issue of allowing transgender women to compete, it should be to err on the side of compassion, the side which does less significant harm. More women will lose competitions to women who are naturally taller or stronger than them, more women will lose scholarships to women who can afford private coaching and better training than them, more women will lose out to women who try harder than them than will ever lose any of those things to the very, very tiny percentage of transgender women who take huge personal risk to transition and compete in sports. Let transgender women be women. Let them compete even if they might win. That’s what sports is about.

Finally, and perhaps I should have said this part first, no people deserve to have their existence questioned. Transgender people have existed throughout history throughout the world. They are real. They are human and thus deserving of all the rights and dignity we all share. They themselves are not up for debate. This is where I’ll lose some people, but any question of such a basic tenet of humanity is not to be tolerated. It’s okay to not understand transgenderism. You can always learn. But any question of their fundamental right to exist is based on ignorance and born of bigotry. It’s the same bigotry that says being gay is immoral. It’s the same bigotry that says Black people are inferior to white. It's the fear of the Other and the reflex to hurt and hate those who are different in a vain attempt to protect and uplift one's own group. Such a view leads to dehumanization and discrimination and does not deserve to be respected or entertained in the discussion of the topic. Transgender women are women.