Cancel Culture - My thoughts

Tonight, I got to thinking about “cancel culture”, and how harmful and destructive this movement is. It is a cancer within our society. Our country was based on the idea that everyone has a right to their own ideas and exercise of their rights as human beings. You don’t have to like my ideas, but I have a right to have them. "Cancel culture" promotes the idea that you must "pay" for having offensive ideas, whether you act on them or not. Just stating them is enough to require punishment.

So what is “cancel culture”? Dictionary.com defines it this way: “Cancel culture refers to the popular practice of withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. Cancel culture is generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming.”

Three famous examples would be Chik-fil-a, Mario Lopez, and most recently GOYA Foods. What were their offenses? The founder of Chik-fil-a made statements that “marriage was ONLY between a man and a woman.” Mario Lopez said you can’t let a child at 3 years of age determine if they are transgender or not. Finally, the CEO of GOYA Foods made positive statements about Trump for the job he’s done as president.

Does the “cancelling” work? Mario Lopez was attacked on every social media platform and his entire career was in jeopardy. He ended up back-pedaling and apologizing for his statement. So they DID win this one. We have seen many famous people lose their jobs, or no longer be able to get jobs through being “cancelled”. Many boycotts formed against businesses have taken those businesses into bankruptcy, and/or closing their doors completely. Many businesses would rather make an “insincere” apology than shutdown.

While boycotts (a favorite tactic of “cancel culture”) can be an effective way to promote change, in my opinion, “cancel culture” goes way too far. They use these tactics to shutdown IDEAS, rather than any actual actions that the “offending” business may be taking. For example, a company that uses “sweat shops” or “child labor” to manufacture cheap products probably deserves to be boycotted. Their actions are directly harmful to and violate their worker’s human rights. But in "cancel culture", the businesses are made to suffer because their owner or a higher ranking leader made a personal statement, or supported an organization with their personal funds, that supports ideas which are "offensive".

Are there any unintended consequences to "cancelling" a business? Well, if a business has to close its doors, all employees suffer the loss of a job. A boycott has been called for against GOYA Foods. They donated 270,000 meals to New York City during the COVID-19 pandemic. If the boycott is effective, such generosity could be lost and many people could go hungry in the future, along with job losses of employees.

So is there any hope in “fighting” all the bullying that "cancel culture" is doing? There may be an actual answer to this dilemma. We have seen it in action, but perhaps never formally thought about it. When the boycott was called for against Chik-fil-a, many abandoned Chik-fil-a. BUT many supporters of Chik-fil-a bought MORE of their products. Sales actually went UP 12%. So if someone organizes such movements to “cancel” the “cancel culture”, we already have proof that it works. 

For GOYA, it’s still too early to tell. But, as the boycott started trending on social media, a counter attack was launched, called a “buy-cott”, with the idea that everyone who supports GOYA, or at least feel the boycott was uncalled for (whether they agree with the CEO's statements about Trump or not), buy $10 of their product and donate it to their local food pantries. At the same time, a GOFUNDME was launched to raise $100,000 to buy GOYA products to donate to food pantries.

Rather than let the bullies win, we simply push back by supporting those being bullied. If those being bullied do BETTER, the “cancel culture” mob may become wise to the fact that they are HELPING those they try to “cancel”, instead of hurting them.

Elizabeth Warren Says, "Banning Men From Competing in Women’s Sports is ‘Cruel’" - My Thoughts

When has it gone too far? I got to thinking about transgenders and women's sports. I dug through a lot of information concerning the "Equality Act", "Title IX", Title VII", etc. I only wanted to look at women's sports as all the rest is very complicated.

I was considering why so many think there is not a problem with transgender women competing against biological women. I think the big mistake people make when this topic is discussed is stating the "obvious" reasons, assuming EVERYONE "knows" that they are obvious, without looking at WHY they are obvious. For most people, these things are obvious because that is what they have known their entire lives. It doesn't mean they are correct, it means that is what they were taught. So in this case, is "obvious" also "correct"?

So let's ask the question, "WHY do we have women's sports in the first place?" The actual answer is "biology". Women who want to play sports are at a disadvantage based on biology. Men tend to be physically larger, have more muscle mass, and some skeletal differences, along with a few other characteristics. These differences have always existed in order for the human race to survive. But BECAUSE they exist, men have a clear advantage when it comes to sports. So to create a fair and equitable playing field, men and women do not compete with one another in the area of sports.

Enter transgenders...

When a man identifies AS a woman, it does not reverse any of the biological factors that have always provided his advantages in sports. This is ONLY true once he has entered puberty. Prior to puberty, boys and girls are virtually identical in physique. But once puberty starts, boys and girls quickly move to being different. The argument is often made that treating prepubescent males with hormone therapy/surgery would keep them from taking on those masculine characteristics that give them the sports advantage. But let's think about that. Would providing such treatment not fall into "child abuse"?

We already have a famous case of a mother and father fighting in court over the gender identity of their son. The child wanted to be a girl and the mother was fully supportive while the father was not. The issue that was being fought was over whether or not the mother could "force" the father to dress their son as a girl, use his new name, start hormone therapy, etc. During the fight between parents, the child outgrew his "wanting to be a girl" phase and now wanted to go back to being a boy. IMO, making permanent, life altering changes to a child who has not reached an age of reason is child abuse. Let the child reach an age where they truly can make their own decision, and then let them do what they want.
So back to the topic, since post-pubescent transgender women have already gained the "male advantage", does allowing them to compete against biological women not destroy the very reason for having separate sports divisions?
Those who believe transgender women should be able to compete with biological women are now stating the case of a biological female athlete who DID beat a transgender woman in a race. My mind goes straight to: "She was obviously not good as a male athlete, and is STILL not a good female athlete." However judgmental that may sound, the data shows how much of an advantage men really do have over women in sports, and one outcome of a race does not change the facts seen since the beginning of sports.

Why would a girl ever aspire to compete in a sport when they know there is no chance for them to ever dominate that sport due to competition against transgenders who use their male advantages? Women who compete are dedicated and work extremely hard to achieve greatness. Why would we allow that to be taken away from them?