And El-Sayed apologized for his "hurt people hurt" quasi-justification for a terrorist attack. These are not examples of people changing their views. These are examples of politicians trying to obscure their beliefs. Talarico is fully on board with the Progressive agenda and, if elected, would vote accordingly to maintain his status among his peers. I'll believe a Democrat who comes out with a full-throated rejection of the woke madness that has driven Democrats like myself out of the party. That's not happening because mainstream Dems are poorly informed and more concerned with maintaining status as one of the good people.
Bro, why the fuck anybody cares about 1% of the population and the sports they play is completely beyond me. If it's really about fairness in sporting, why not have height minimums for NBA players and weight requirements for linebackers? If the inequality of competition stems from specific biological traits, regulate those specific traits until they're fair; flatten the fairness curve. If you can't bench 350 lbs, you don't get to be on the team. Having a dick doesn't affect fairness in sporting.
Beyond that, minors do not receive gender affirming surgeries, especially bottom surgery. These issues are artificially inflated to generate outrage among groups of people who seek out confirmation bias for their own transphobia, and Democrats are certainly not the exception here. The reality of transgendered youth is that they sometimes wear binders, and are sometimes placed on hormone blockers, just like young girls are when the family feels their menstrual cycle begins too early.
It is genuinely strange and off-putting to put so much emphasis on a group of people who make up >1% of the United States, and doubly so when it comes to dissecting their biology to discriminate against them using "biological advantage" as a ruse, when the reality is that none of these people give a fuck about fairness in competition or sporting, they just think that trans people are icky because they're bigoted freaks who want an excuse to say so and legislate on it.
I don't get why you wouldn't care. Female sports are female sports - what is the rationale for letting some men be regarded as female? We don't have sex segregated spaces to accommodate feelings or self concepts, but material realities. If you allow males in female sports, you don't have female sports anymore. You have mixed sex sports. There is just no reason trans-identifying males should be permitted in female sports in any numbers. You keep them out for the same reason you keep me out. It isn't discrimination - it is just following the normal rules we all follow. Transwomen are not a special category of male for these purposes. You get a population of transwomen and their bell curve on sex valent traits that justify single sex spaces are male-like, not female-like. You can't introspect into a sex category. Keeping female sports female isn't discriminating against trans people - it is just discriminating against males. I quite specifically don't think trans-identified people (nobody is "really trans") are icky or gross. I hate religious fundamentalism and am quite happy to see expansive disregard of gender norms. But it doesn't make you female is the point. Not allowing males in female sports is not discrimination unless you are arguing against the idea of sex segregated spaces entirely. I don’t mind at all males who resonate more with perceived feminine stereotypes, long to be regarded as women or (more accurately probably) wish to negate their own sex (“Candy says, I’ve come to hate my body”as Lou Reed perceptively wrote). But none of this makes you female nor does it add up to “feeling like a woman”.
>The Komodo analysis of insurance claims found 56 genital surgeries among patients ages 13 to 17 with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis from 2019 to 2021.
>Among teens, “top surgery” to remove breasts is more common. In the three years ending in 2021, at least 776 mastectomies were performed in the United States on patients ages 13 to 17 with a gender dysphoria diagnosis, according to Komodo’s data analysis of insurance claims. This tally does not include procedures that were paid for out of pocket.
>At least 14,726 minors started hormone treatment with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis from 2017 through 2021, according to the Komodo analysis.
A guess based on "scant evidence" is a guess based on vibes. If the evidence for transgendered minors undergoing surgery is scant, then it becomes irresponsible to legislate based on that evidence, no? Or are we conceding to the era of vibes-based politics in which we legislate against things we admittedly have "scant evidence" to support just because people feel like it?
I don't think issues are worthy of addressing on the basis of arbitrary numbers. I think that, no matter the medical need, conversations about surgery, hormone blockers, and gender affirming care should be held between parents, children, and their families because it isn't any of my business.
I think it is generally best to trust medical professionals over the opinions of the public, many of whom are themselves childless, have never met a trans person, and especially have never met a trans child.
What do you think the right number would be? My guess is that you'd say any, which speaks even more to how arbitrary any given number of surgeries is relative to the actual argument you're trying to make.
…and let me also add my niece had breast removal in her teams - recommended literally after 2 therapy sessions from a trans therapists. Oopsie - turns out she has schizophrenia and during her alcohol driven psychotic unmedicated episodes one of the many things she rants about is “why did my parents let me mutilate myself?” Valuable time was wasted on this nonsense when she could have been getting proper mental health care and now she has no insurance and can’t be given involuntary therapy apart from the countless emergency holds put on her when people realize she is a danger to herself and others.
…and let me add that you never see natal females trying to identify their way into male spaces where there are stakes. How many females who identify as trans, when arrested and convicted say “No damnit! I am a man, send me to San Quentin, not the female country club prison!”. And we wouldn’t care if they did except to worry for their safety. That is how you know it isn’t anti-trans but just sex realism. I cannot inhabit even the argument for why well-meaning people think that having some feelings (as if feelings can tell you anything about reality - feeling can be sincere but be worthless as an l account) reclassifies males into female categories. It can only be that progressives escalate validation and emotional well-being to extreme levels of importance. You can’t literally believe trans-ness is a material state that removes males from the female distribution on things like likelihood of violence, strength, etc. “Feeling like a woman” is no more relevant to how we should classify males than “I have a personal relationship with Jesus” should inform policy.
Spoken like a true reddit atheist. Aside from your transphobia ("nobody is really trans") and the fact that I have no reason to believe a personal anecdote, you dodge the substance of the argument entirely. Once again I ask, if this is really about fairness in competition and sporting, why the focus on sex category when the biological basis for "fairness" in sports extends far beyond the limited scope of sex and gender?
Your selective outrage is both obvious and comes across as bad faith when trans athletes make up next to 0% of professional athletes and you choose not only remain conspicuously silent, but actively refuse to engage with other, more prescient, questions regarding fairness in sport and competition.
Why is taking the opportunity to avoid San Quentin and go to a "female country club prison" an indictment of trans folks rather than an indictment of the conditions people suffer at San Quentin? I would take the same exact option, given the opportunity, and I'm sure you would as well. Why do you reduce the likelihood of violence to biological terms across a sexed binary rather than to the material conditions of people's lives under capitalism, both cultural and economic, which you claim are the driving factor behind your thought process?
Is emotional well-being not of extreme importance already? If it isn't, why do people advocate for red flag laws? Why do schools implement counselors for troubled youth? Why do parents tell their children "you can be anything"? Why do people coddle transphobic freaks because they think they know better and should be allowed to legislate against what people do with their own bodies?
Every single metric you ascribe to a sexed or gendered binary is infinitely more explainable and likely across far more specific sets and matrices than you're even willing to engage with, yet you expect to be taken seriously despite refusing to take the subject you are discussing seriously.
You should think more deeply about things before you speak emotionally about them.
"Is emotional well-being not of extreme importance already? If it isn't, why do people advocate for red flag laws? Why do schools implement counselors for troubled youth? Why do parents tell their children "you can be anything"? Why do people coddle transphobic freaks because they think they know better and should be allowed to legislate against what people do with their own bodies?" Emotional well-being has to be defined by a set standard or else neurotics can call normal conditions abuse. Our standard can't just be "if x feels bad, then it is bad". And if I wasn't clearly, I am mostly happy to play along with fictions - I don't agree with uber-terf types who have to take every opportunity to rub people's noses in the fact they are actually male. It doesn't matter in most settings. And I definitely think adults have the right to alter their body. I have religious coworkers and I dont' have to constantly say "you know God doesn't exist, right?" every time they allude to church or something. Same with my trans colleague. All of us benefit when others play along with our fictions sometimes. But sometimes policy has to insist on empirical reality.
I am not transphobic. I have no issue at all with people who resonate more with the perceived norms of the opposite sex, who would feel better being regarded as the opposite sex or any of that stuff. But nobody is “trans” in tne sense of being born in the wrong body. Woman and female are synonyms. A “woman” isn’t a set of stereotypes or feelings or performances. I think trans identifying people can be quite sincere, but also wrong about the etiology of their feelings (as all of us can be in all kinds of areas - see people who pray and think Jesus talks to them. I don’t think they are lying about their feelings but I also know they aren’t talking to Jesus). “why the focus on sex category when the biological basis for "fairness" in sports extends far beyond the limited scope of sex and gender?” Because biological sex (regardless of how one identifies) strongly predicts performance ceiling in ways that few other things do. So are you arguing to get rid of sex segregation in sports entirely? If not, why an exception for this particular set of males? If you are saying that sure sexes have means and standard deviations that are pretty far apart, but so does height, size, etc, then isn’t that an argument for just completely doing away with sex segregation? Are you an athlete? You do know that plenty of sports where it truly matters also have weight classes right? I have no selective outrage. I don’t think males should compete in female sports and I am not making an exception for some subset of males that have common feelings. I’d be just as outraged if any guy insisted they belonged in female sports. Sometimes I think people with your view are just completely unaware of the magnitude of sex differences. When I as a 14:50ish 5k runner, I’d be lucky to win a local race with a few hundred dollars in prize money. I with an Olympic caliber field and beat women who ran in the Olympics. My wife is one of the best 50+ powerlifters in the world with a 227 bench and 388 deadlift (weighing 148 pounds). She is the strongest woman in any gym she goes to in the country. There are countless men that can do this that barely train. A “woman” who looks like your drunk uncle on the couch (because they are male) should not be able to identify into a sport and beat my wife. Feeling a certain way doesn’t erase the male advantage. My view is the best your going to get - you are never going to convince people that some males are actually female in every way. You better come around to the idea that the rights you need are like religious rights - the right to believe and practice. But civil rights never require that beliefs be validated. We don’t do it for Mormons, we don’t do it for Baptists, we don’t do it for Muslims. Feelings are not facts whether you think Jesus is talking to you when you introspect about your life problems or whether you think feelings you have are woman feelings (whatever those would be).
You are literally transphobic if your definition of trans acceptance comes down to "playing along with fictions" and referring to trans women as men, it doesn't depend on whether you're an uber-terf or not. Like, you either understand dysphoria as a condition which requires treatment and has results or you do not, it's pretty simple.
Civil rights literally stem from validating people's beliefs, historically; the belief that black people are fully human, that women have the mental capacity to vote responsibly, the belief that racial factors have no impact \on job performance, the belief that queer folks can serve equally efficiently in the military, the belief that religion can and should be separate form statecraft, etc.
Nobody is trying to convince you that males are females, you just have underdeveloped ideas about sex and gender which preclude you from understanding your own argument, and so for you it is circular. I don't personally give a shit about separating sports by gender, sex, etc., but if the basis for separation and exclusion come down to measurable factors of which sex is predictive, why not simply measure those factors rather than make predictions about them?
The answer is that it is more important to transphobes to hang onto outdated fictions about what "sex" and "gender" are, both definitionally and materially, than to allow language and ideas evolve to meet people at their material needs, which is the purpose of language and communication in the first place.
I think you're being too generous with Talarico. He's a Democrat trying to win a conservative state with discontented conservative voters who look at anything Trump has touched and go green around the gills. He's removing at least one obstacle to the reasonable among them voting for him. But I fully agree it's a nice thought that we can pull politicians back to the land of the reasonable.
I have no issue with preventing children from having “gender affirming care”. There is no good evidence that it improves the quality of life for children undergoing hormone treatments or surgery. These treatments are unprecedented in human history and potentially dangerous.
What makes the concepts 8 have if sex and gender outdated? Because of some theorizing by activists? The purpose of language is to communicate reality. Your comments prove my point about ge der identity belief being emphemeral and religion adjacent. What other empirical facts should we ignore if they meet some people's needs? That is an argument I hear from religious fundamentalists.
I have no idea why trans rights need include the idea that some males get to be legally considered females. This would be like if religious rights meant that the government had to validate the content of a religion's beliefs and make policy according to them. People should be able to believe things and practice those beliefs, but the government isn't required to pretend they are true and make policy as if they are. That demand clearly goes beyond civil rights. Transwomen are just not a special category of male on the metrics that justify single sex spaces. One needn't hate anyone to say so. I don't hate Christians but I think Jesus was likely a myth and nothing in the Bible was produced by revelation. I can think someone's beliefs are sincere without thinking they are empirically true or that introspection is a useful way of knowing facts.
And El-Sayed apologized for his "hurt people hurt" quasi-justification for a terrorist attack. These are not examples of people changing their views. These are examples of politicians trying to obscure their beliefs. Talarico is fully on board with the Progressive agenda and, if elected, would vote accordingly to maintain his status among his peers. I'll believe a Democrat who comes out with a full-throated rejection of the woke madness that has driven Democrats like myself out of the party. That's not happening because mainstream Dems are poorly informed and more concerned with maintaining status as one of the good people.
Bro, why the fuck anybody cares about 1% of the population and the sports they play is completely beyond me. If it's really about fairness in sporting, why not have height minimums for NBA players and weight requirements for linebackers? If the inequality of competition stems from specific biological traits, regulate those specific traits until they're fair; flatten the fairness curve. If you can't bench 350 lbs, you don't get to be on the team. Having a dick doesn't affect fairness in sporting.
Beyond that, minors do not receive gender affirming surgeries, especially bottom surgery. These issues are artificially inflated to generate outrage among groups of people who seek out confirmation bias for their own transphobia, and Democrats are certainly not the exception here. The reality of transgendered youth is that they sometimes wear binders, and are sometimes placed on hormone blockers, just like young girls are when the family feels their menstrual cycle begins too early.
It is genuinely strange and off-putting to put so much emphasis on a group of people who make up >1% of the United States, and doubly so when it comes to dissecting their biology to discriminate against them using "biological advantage" as a ruse, when the reality is that none of these people give a fuck about fairness in competition or sporting, they just think that trans people are icky because they're bigoted freaks who want an excuse to say so and legislate on it.
Utter cowardice from people who think like this.
I don't get why you wouldn't care. Female sports are female sports - what is the rationale for letting some men be regarded as female? We don't have sex segregated spaces to accommodate feelings or self concepts, but material realities. If you allow males in female sports, you don't have female sports anymore. You have mixed sex sports. There is just no reason trans-identifying males should be permitted in female sports in any numbers. You keep them out for the same reason you keep me out. It isn't discrimination - it is just following the normal rules we all follow. Transwomen are not a special category of male for these purposes. You get a population of transwomen and their bell curve on sex valent traits that justify single sex spaces are male-like, not female-like. You can't introspect into a sex category. Keeping female sports female isn't discriminating against trans people - it is just discriminating against males. I quite specifically don't think trans-identified people (nobody is "really trans") are icky or gross. I hate religious fundamentalism and am quite happy to see expansive disregard of gender norms. But it doesn't make you female is the point. Not allowing males in female sports is not discrimination unless you are arguing against the idea of sex segregated spaces entirely. I don’t mind at all males who resonate more with perceived feminine stereotypes, long to be regarded as women or (more accurately probably) wish to negate their own sex (“Candy says, I’ve come to hate my body”as Lou Reed perceptively wrote). But none of this makes you female nor does it add up to “feeling like a woman”.
>The Komodo analysis of insurance claims found 56 genital surgeries among patients ages 13 to 17 with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis from 2019 to 2021.
>Among teens, “top surgery” to remove breasts is more common. In the three years ending in 2021, at least 776 mastectomies were performed in the United States on patients ages 13 to 17 with a gender dysphoria diagnosis, according to Komodo’s data analysis of insurance claims. This tally does not include procedures that were paid for out of pocket.
>At least 14,726 minors started hormone treatment with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis from 2017 through 2021, according to the Komodo analysis.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/
There's scant evidence one way or the other how many minors have had such surgeries. A 2024 Harvard study found that, in 2019, 85 minors had surgeries that were covered by insurance. Since then, my guess would be that the number has gone up. https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/gender-affirming-surgeries-rarely-performed-on-transgender-youth/
A guess based on "scant evidence" is a guess based on vibes. If the evidence for transgendered minors undergoing surgery is scant, then it becomes irresponsible to legislate based on that evidence, no? Or are we conceding to the era of vibes-based politics in which we legislate against things we admittedly have "scant evidence" to support just because people feel like it?
What would the right number of surgeries be for you to feel that it's worthy of addressing?
I don't think issues are worthy of addressing on the basis of arbitrary numbers. I think that, no matter the medical need, conversations about surgery, hormone blockers, and gender affirming care should be held between parents, children, and their families because it isn't any of my business.
I think it is generally best to trust medical professionals over the opinions of the public, many of whom are themselves childless, have never met a trans person, and especially have never met a trans child.
What do you think the right number would be? My guess is that you'd say any, which speaks even more to how arbitrary any given number of surgeries is relative to the actual argument you're trying to make.
…and let me also add my niece had breast removal in her teams - recommended literally after 2 therapy sessions from a trans therapists. Oopsie - turns out she has schizophrenia and during her alcohol driven psychotic unmedicated episodes one of the many things she rants about is “why did my parents let me mutilate myself?” Valuable time was wasted on this nonsense when she could have been getting proper mental health care and now she has no insurance and can’t be given involuntary therapy apart from the countless emergency holds put on her when people realize she is a danger to herself and others.
…and let me add that you never see natal females trying to identify their way into male spaces where there are stakes. How many females who identify as trans, when arrested and convicted say “No damnit! I am a man, send me to San Quentin, not the female country club prison!”. And we wouldn’t care if they did except to worry for their safety. That is how you know it isn’t anti-trans but just sex realism. I cannot inhabit even the argument for why well-meaning people think that having some feelings (as if feelings can tell you anything about reality - feeling can be sincere but be worthless as an l account) reclassifies males into female categories. It can only be that progressives escalate validation and emotional well-being to extreme levels of importance. You can’t literally believe trans-ness is a material state that removes males from the female distribution on things like likelihood of violence, strength, etc. “Feeling like a woman” is no more relevant to how we should classify males than “I have a personal relationship with Jesus” should inform policy.
Spoken like a true reddit atheist. Aside from your transphobia ("nobody is really trans") and the fact that I have no reason to believe a personal anecdote, you dodge the substance of the argument entirely. Once again I ask, if this is really about fairness in competition and sporting, why the focus on sex category when the biological basis for "fairness" in sports extends far beyond the limited scope of sex and gender?
Your selective outrage is both obvious and comes across as bad faith when trans athletes make up next to 0% of professional athletes and you choose not only remain conspicuously silent, but actively refuse to engage with other, more prescient, questions regarding fairness in sport and competition.
Why is taking the opportunity to avoid San Quentin and go to a "female country club prison" an indictment of trans folks rather than an indictment of the conditions people suffer at San Quentin? I would take the same exact option, given the opportunity, and I'm sure you would as well. Why do you reduce the likelihood of violence to biological terms across a sexed binary rather than to the material conditions of people's lives under capitalism, both cultural and economic, which you claim are the driving factor behind your thought process?
Is emotional well-being not of extreme importance already? If it isn't, why do people advocate for red flag laws? Why do schools implement counselors for troubled youth? Why do parents tell their children "you can be anything"? Why do people coddle transphobic freaks because they think they know better and should be allowed to legislate against what people do with their own bodies?
Every single metric you ascribe to a sexed or gendered binary is infinitely more explainable and likely across far more specific sets and matrices than you're even willing to engage with, yet you expect to be taken seriously despite refusing to take the subject you are discussing seriously.
You should think more deeply about things before you speak emotionally about them.
"Is emotional well-being not of extreme importance already? If it isn't, why do people advocate for red flag laws? Why do schools implement counselors for troubled youth? Why do parents tell their children "you can be anything"? Why do people coddle transphobic freaks because they think they know better and should be allowed to legislate against what people do with their own bodies?" Emotional well-being has to be defined by a set standard or else neurotics can call normal conditions abuse. Our standard can't just be "if x feels bad, then it is bad". And if I wasn't clearly, I am mostly happy to play along with fictions - I don't agree with uber-terf types who have to take every opportunity to rub people's noses in the fact they are actually male. It doesn't matter in most settings. And I definitely think adults have the right to alter their body. I have religious coworkers and I dont' have to constantly say "you know God doesn't exist, right?" every time they allude to church or something. Same with my trans colleague. All of us benefit when others play along with our fictions sometimes. But sometimes policy has to insist on empirical reality.
I am not transphobic. I have no issue at all with people who resonate more with the perceived norms of the opposite sex, who would feel better being regarded as the opposite sex or any of that stuff. But nobody is “trans” in tne sense of being born in the wrong body. Woman and female are synonyms. A “woman” isn’t a set of stereotypes or feelings or performances. I think trans identifying people can be quite sincere, but also wrong about the etiology of their feelings (as all of us can be in all kinds of areas - see people who pray and think Jesus talks to them. I don’t think they are lying about their feelings but I also know they aren’t talking to Jesus). “why the focus on sex category when the biological basis for "fairness" in sports extends far beyond the limited scope of sex and gender?” Because biological sex (regardless of how one identifies) strongly predicts performance ceiling in ways that few other things do. So are you arguing to get rid of sex segregation in sports entirely? If not, why an exception for this particular set of males? If you are saying that sure sexes have means and standard deviations that are pretty far apart, but so does height, size, etc, then isn’t that an argument for just completely doing away with sex segregation? Are you an athlete? You do know that plenty of sports where it truly matters also have weight classes right? I have no selective outrage. I don’t think males should compete in female sports and I am not making an exception for some subset of males that have common feelings. I’d be just as outraged if any guy insisted they belonged in female sports. Sometimes I think people with your view are just completely unaware of the magnitude of sex differences. When I as a 14:50ish 5k runner, I’d be lucky to win a local race with a few hundred dollars in prize money. I with an Olympic caliber field and beat women who ran in the Olympics. My wife is one of the best 50+ powerlifters in the world with a 227 bench and 388 deadlift (weighing 148 pounds). She is the strongest woman in any gym she goes to in the country. There are countless men that can do this that barely train. A “woman” who looks like your drunk uncle on the couch (because they are male) should not be able to identify into a sport and beat my wife. Feeling a certain way doesn’t erase the male advantage. My view is the best your going to get - you are never going to convince people that some males are actually female in every way. You better come around to the idea that the rights you need are like religious rights - the right to believe and practice. But civil rights never require that beliefs be validated. We don’t do it for Mormons, we don’t do it for Baptists, we don’t do it for Muslims. Feelings are not facts whether you think Jesus is talking to you when you introspect about your life problems or whether you think feelings you have are woman feelings (whatever those would be).
You are literally transphobic if your definition of trans acceptance comes down to "playing along with fictions" and referring to trans women as men, it doesn't depend on whether you're an uber-terf or not. Like, you either understand dysphoria as a condition which requires treatment and has results or you do not, it's pretty simple.
Civil rights literally stem from validating people's beliefs, historically; the belief that black people are fully human, that women have the mental capacity to vote responsibly, the belief that racial factors have no impact \on job performance, the belief that queer folks can serve equally efficiently in the military, the belief that religion can and should be separate form statecraft, etc.
Nobody is trying to convince you that males are females, you just have underdeveloped ideas about sex and gender which preclude you from understanding your own argument, and so for you it is circular. I don't personally give a shit about separating sports by gender, sex, etc., but if the basis for separation and exclusion come down to measurable factors of which sex is predictive, why not simply measure those factors rather than make predictions about them?
The answer is that it is more important to transphobes to hang onto outdated fictions about what "sex" and "gender" are, both definitionally and materially, than to allow language and ideas evolve to meet people at their material needs, which is the purpose of language and communication in the first place.
I think you're being too generous with Talarico. He's a Democrat trying to win a conservative state with discontented conservative voters who look at anything Trump has touched and go green around the gills. He's removing at least one obstacle to the reasonable among them voting for him. But I fully agree it's a nice thought that we can pull politicians back to the land of the reasonable.
I have no issue with preventing children from having “gender affirming care”. There is no good evidence that it improves the quality of life for children undergoing hormone treatments or surgery. These treatments are unprecedented in human history and potentially dangerous.
What makes the concepts 8 have if sex and gender outdated? Because of some theorizing by activists? The purpose of language is to communicate reality. Your comments prove my point about ge der identity belief being emphemeral and religion adjacent. What other empirical facts should we ignore if they meet some people's needs? That is an argument I hear from religious fundamentalists.
I have no idea why trans rights need include the idea that some males get to be legally considered females. This would be like if religious rights meant that the government had to validate the content of a religion's beliefs and make policy according to them. People should be able to believe things and practice those beliefs, but the government isn't required to pretend they are true and make policy as if they are. That demand clearly goes beyond civil rights. Transwomen are just not a special category of male on the metrics that justify single sex spaces. One needn't hate anyone to say so. I don't hate Christians but I think Jesus was likely a myth and nothing in the Bible was produced by revelation. I can think someone's beliefs are sincere without thinking they are empirically true or that introspection is a useful way of knowing facts.
I don’t think the headline does the article justice but enjoyed the read either way.