Earlier today, I published an article titled “Why Laws Banning Transgender Athletes Are Bad.” Within only a few hours, at least three different people who are on my mailing list left comments objecting to this post, insisting to varying degrees that they are sick of my political opinions, that they didn’t sign up for “Tales of the Woke,” and that this blog should be reserved exclusively for content that is immediately relevant to pre-modern history.
I initially decided that these commenters have a point and deleted the post, thinking that those who want to read it could still read it on Quora, where I have published it as an answer. After some more thought, though, I decided that, since I already published the article here, I would restore it.
I have, of course, written about politics on this blog ever since the beginning. One of the very first articles I ever published on this website nearly five years ago in November 2016, when I was much younger and much more naïve, was partially a commentary on the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In the past, however, I have generally kept my commentary on this blog relevant to pre-modern history in some fashion and reserved my less historically relevant commentary for Quora alone. By double-posting my not-at-all-historically-relevant commentary on trans athletes to this blog, some readers evidently felt I crossed a serious line.
While I understand the argument, I still enjoy your political posts as well. Perhaps you could open another blog for the political stuff?
I depend on your ‘pre-modern history’ essays and learn much from them.
When you publish something that does not interest me, I simply delete it. Seems simple.
Oh, gosh: some people are offended by “woke” posts, and have to express their outrage by doing a public flounce?
Snowflakes.
I enjoyed the article, but I was wondering why it didn’t dig a bit deeper into the question of “why are we getting this flood of anti-trans laws” — and anti-trans articles. Last week, the leading Dutch newspaper NRC published a so-called opinion piece by a so-called media sociologist about how bad it is that nobody is allowed to discuss the problems with pre-adult transition. The article was so bad that the editor should have filtered it out — something they might have recognized since all comments were locked until the end of the day, and then published in one go.
In the same week, the Guardian had an interview with a “philosopher” who argues that there should be a dialogue between trans women and trans exclusionary radical feminists, because the former might be able to learn to understand that the latter have a point about trans women not being women.
All in the name of freedom of debate.
Of course, we could also have a discussion about how targeted breeding might improve the human race and keep it white, but someone nobody is arguing for making that discussion possible much anymore.
So, what’s behind it? Who’s behind it? As a trans woman, I wonder why someone who isn’t in any way connected to anything even remotely relevant to the topic suddenly gets an article like this published in a leading newspaper. I wonder who sponsored that book. I know that all those US trans laws are written by one conservative organization that “helps” local legislatures push that agenda — but what’s behind that? Why are people doing that? Is it just that the traditional enemies of tradition — women, people of color, gays — have lost the power to scare the people into the arms of the conservatives?
I think the main reason why Republican lawmakers in the United States are pushing so many anti-trans bills is because the Republican Party just suffered a major defeat in the 2020 election, in which they lost control of both the presidency and the Senate. I think they are hoping to harness popular anti-trans sentiments at the state level in order to help fuel an electoral comeback in 2022 and hopefully regain control of both the House and the Senate so they can block Biden from passing any kind of legislation.
I think this is the same reason why they’re pushing so hard against abortion rights right now, and why they’re trying to turn stupid little things like the Mr. Potato Head brand changing its name into big “culture war” issues.
Hi Spencer
While I respect your opinions on all topics, contemporary social and political commentary is not what most people sign up for in a Blog called “Tales of Times Forgotten” and subtitled “Making the Distant Past Relevant to the Present Day”. While the occasional straying into contemporary commentary might have been forgiven, there seems to be almost a preponderance of it in recent months. Some of us feel starved of your insights into the ancient world.
May I respectfully suggest you now need two blogs:
1. “Tales of Times Forgotten” with its traditional content
2. “[you name it]” dealing with contemporary issues (which seem to be engaging you more and more)
Both would be valuable contributions to the marketplace of ideas. And readers’ expectations would be met.
Best Wishes
Ian Robinson
If you did cross a line, I don’t see how it could be that serious. Sure, this didn’t touch on ancient history. An occasional departure is not enough to call this “false advertising” or something though I don’t think. It was clear from the comments put on the previous post that the main disagreement was with your politics. Now, as those are very clear from other posts, it is far from news where you stand. For people who disagree with you that much, there are easy solutions: stop reading, or simply don’t read the posts like these which are you commenting on political issues. It’s your blog-write what you want. As for me, though I’ve disagreed with you a few times, I’m going to keep reading it, and sometimes commenting.
Its your blog, you can write what you want.
Exactly my thought.
It’s your damn blog, Spence, and a good part of its draw, aside from the historical detail, is YOUR particular take on subjects, YOUR way of putting the new into context of the old. While I’ll admit to a certain bias in that I usually end up agreeing with you, or at least not seriously at odds, I’ll also stand by the reminder that one can just scroll on by. JEEEZ LOUIIISE, People!!
(I have missed a few posts recently, been busy, so have only seen the notifications and enjoyed a spike in the happy brain chems as I looked forward to reading them.)
I for one really enjoy reading your blogs, finding them both interesting and informative. This was no different and the fact it was published as part of your usual blog makes no difference to me. Lots of food for thought and makes me want to enquire into the current position in the UK regarding this.
It’s your blog, write what you want. I only read articles I am interested in and not others.
Anyway, it wouldn’t be hard to write any article about current issues and compare them to similar issues from ancient history and other non-european based cultures existing (surviving) today e.g. Native American (Lakota I think) who have (had?) 5 genders.
One example – Last night I went to a ”philosophy play” called ”Ataraxia and Algorithms” which was attempting to make analogies between issues arising from today’s digital age, where AI may take us, data privacy etc and how a Stoic philosophers’ attitude to life may help us approach this; as well as the dynamic between Socrates and the polity of Athens. In my judgement the themes failed to mesh, it missed the highly ambitious mark, but it was a worthwhile effort which stimulated a lot of post-performance conversations.
Noone is forced to read, regardless of headline or topic. You are not their servant. If they object to your views that simply reflects their inability to tolerate, let alone celebrate, living in a pluralistic democracy.
Of for Pete’s sake–anyone who doesn’t want to read an occasional off topic blog post can just click and close the tab. What is wrong with people? Are we becoming whiners who complain when we don’t get exactly what we want? And from a blog that produces world class posts for free.
Sometime people embarrass me.
I agree. It’s harmless to post it here. Anyone who doesn’t like it can just skip that article. It’s not Spencer’s responsibility to maintain the reader’s filter bubble.
Hello Spencer,
I read your answer the other day and as usual you answered in your cogent and methodical manner. Please disregard those who try to shut you down. There are many other websites they can visit for “head-in-the-sand” content. Furthermore, the time between “pre-modern” and “modern” content is less than the blink of an eye, so it is relative.
Regards,
Radovan
I started following your blog recently in no small part because you are engaging with contemporary concerns. Otherwise we are just doing antiquarianism.
Your blog is more politizesed in recent times. I sometimes think it’s a bit unobjective and sometimes i do not agree with out. You have an oppinnion and you say that. Sometimes it bores me.
So what? This is not just your right, i think its even a duty.
3 suggestions:
– make ot clear in title, when the article is off topic.
-take care, as much as it is possible to separate oppinoin and “fact” (i am sure you do alrady) when its in the same article
– continue writing interesting articles, most were to me
I like that you take critisism serious. Speaks for you.
Decisions that rule people are all political. You cant avoid it. The decisions we make today are all based on things from the past.
Also, the people getting their panties in a twist are looking for outrage so they can rant about their particular political beliefs.
I don’t live in the US, so I am no expert of the politics in your country. But it is obvious that it is becoming a politically polarized country. I really admire your articles about history and your critical view when describing the past. However, your postings are becoming more political with more emphasis on race (a concept that I don’t even share – we are only one human race) and gender politics. You have of course the right to do so, but I will no longer follow your blog. Please note that I am not a “conservative” or against political analysis of history. Just tired of political polarization and just looking for interesting reading about history.
I don’t agree with your views on banning transgender athletes.
I also don’t agree with whoever has criticized you for posting your opinion(s).
You’ve more than earned the right to do whatever you want with this blog.
And also: Thank you!
Hey Spencer! This is an amazing blog, always well written, informative, and witty. You are very good at what you do! Please don’t let negative comments get you down. If anyone doesn’t like a post, they can go read something else. And remember that there are people (like me) who come to this blog because of your compassionate take on social issues, not in spite of it.
And really, nobody needs a comfortable understanding of the diversity of human gender and sexual expression than someone who studies ancient Greece and Rome!
Thank you so much for your kind words! I’m so glad to hear that you appreciate my work!
I entirely support you discussing politics on this blog. It is your blog, after all, and there is nothing wrong with you attempting to support those being marginalized in our society. After all, it’s not as if those who object to your political articles are forced to read them.
Moreover, it’s strange to me that people argue that this is a classics blog, and so shouldn’t discuss present day issues. A major reason that we study history and its writings is to inform our understanding of the present day.