Your October Questions, Answered. By Jesse Singal

jessesingal.substack.com

30 - 38 minutes

Man, you guys asked so many good questions. I probably won’t make this a habit, but I’m going to divide my responses into two parts so I can answer more of them. I’ll space things out and publish Part 2 of this AMA two or three Singal-Mindeds down the road. Definitely open to feedback about how often I should do AMAs — I view them as high-variance because they can get so random. I bet sometimes readers really like them, and sometimes there’s a bit of scrolling through without much excitement. It’s sort of luck of the draw, both which questions I answer and whether you, the reader, are interested in those particular subjects.

On to the answers:

Hi Jesse — a big fan of your work, diligence, and ability to explain the complexities of a controversial topic in a good-faith way. I have a question about your decisions regarding media appearances. I know you and Katie, for example, have appeared on Megyn Kelly’s podcast/show. However, when I have seen you both on, while you two have been great because of your even-tempered and measured opinions, it seems like Megyn is using your voices and perspectives as a way of saying “see it’s not just me saying liberals are bad; it’s other liberals too!” While you and Katie do offer valuable perspectives, it seems as if someone like Megyn Kelly is using your perspectives in bad faith on her part.

So how do you balance or determine to do a media appearance regarding a topic where you might have expertise, and the provider of the platform?

Thanks! —Adam Colorado

I don’t think there are any easy answers to this. The way I look at it is that my work depends, in part, on reaching as large an audience as possible. To the extent I can reach large audiences without appearing on the platforms of people who are crazy, I’ll generally do that, allowing for various contextually dependent exceptions.

Megyn Kelly has a large audience. She isn’t crazy. She is conservative, significantly to the right of me on a variety of issues. Undoubtedly, we’re coming at the world from different perspectives. But I don’t think it’s ridiculous to believe that if I weren’t the guest, there’d be a farther-right one anyway, and plus, I don’t have a problem pushing back if I think she (or anyone) is pushing some point too far, or exaggerating the evidence for some position. But yes, I certainly recognize the possibility of getting the Even The Liberal Jesse Singal treatment. I guess at a certain level I don’t care that much? Even The Liberal Jesse Singal thinks that there were embarrassing, unfair meltdowns in mainstream media after George Floyd was murdered? Sure, I’ll cop to that opinion. If conservatives agree with it, so what? Even The Liberal Jesse Singal thinks we should be careful about puberty blockers and hormones? Same deal. Of course, if Kelly or anyone else tries to say Even The Liberal Jesse Singal holds some opinion I don’t hold, I’ll say so.

One interesting example of how this works in practice was when I went on The Joe Rogan Experience. I wasn’t not going to go on Joe Rogan. I’d go on Joe Rogan again. But I really didn’t like the way he had soft-pedaled and excused Alex Jones, who is a longtime friend of his, but who is also genuinely one of the most pernicious figures in English-speaking media. So near the top of my appearance, I criticized Jones — I didn’t want to go on this platform without doing so. But it was, in retrospect, a bit half-hearted. For one thing, I’m not an expert on Alex Jones. For another, while I wanted to make my point, I wasn’t going to completely derail the appearance just to talk about Alex Jones. So I don’t think it really accomplished anything other than getting a bunch of Rogan’s fans to hate me (they were also very mad that I criticized Donald Trump). 

What do you think it will take for the US public to look at what is going on in youth gender “medicine”? It appears to me that it is not medicine, it’s pseudo-medicine. There isn’t differential diagnosis to determine treatment recommendations (people don’t know how to determine for whom medical intervention might help, although there are some red flags to indicate whom it might hurt. . . e.g., comorbidities, trauma, being gay, social pressures noted), and someone considering medical treatment can’t be told the likelihood of any outcome or even how many have had bad outcomes or good outcomes. Or what will happen, most likely, if they don’t have this treatment, but do an alternative or no treatment (“BRAN”-benefits, risks, assessments and doing nothing). For cancer, for instance, if you don’t intervene. . . you know it’s going to be bad. Here. . . we don’t know. . . people keep saying it is inappropriate to not treat people if you can, but the Dutch protocol always refused some people, what treatment did they get? (Not my argument, heard it from someone else, but it’s good!)

Right now decent medical care (e.g., diagnosis and treatment based upon studies) is not happening and yet there is a wall of “anyone who asks questions about the evidence hates these young people” . . . and people won’t look. I know lawsuits are starting, detransitioners are speaking up, evidence reviews are happening, and hopefully someone will someday soon start to look at long-term outcomes from those a decade ago or so. . . but I just see this wall with people’s minds totally closed down. They seem afraid to think about it and to assume that anyone who brings it up is a bigot (no matter what else they’ve done or been their entire lives). What do you think it will take? (If this is an impossible question, of course please ignore!)

Thank you for all you have done on this — most recently for holding medical articles to standards of rigor (you shouldn’t have had to, but the journals didn’t require accuracy or making sense, so thank you for pointing it out!). —J Chicago

These questions are at the top of my mind because I just discussed them in some detail at the talk I gave last night at UCLA, and because during the Q&A someone asked me where I see things going on this issue in the States. 

I think there’s pretty big variation in the quality of care kids get in the States. Across the pond,vthe Cass Review mentioned the concept of basically “clinician roulette” (I’m forgetting the exact term Hilary Cas used) in youth gender medicine — as a young patient, you might get a really careful, competent therapist, or you might get one who is overly enthusiastic about physical interventions and won’t really attend to your psychological comorbidities.

I think that’s the case here as well. As I argued in my talk, the available evidence suggests that few clinics are following the slow-roll, assessment-heavy approach the Dutch developed. Now, this evidence is scattered and anecdotal because so few clinics produce useful, detailed information about their operations, but in my view it’s buttressed by 1) Laura Edwards-Leeper acknowledging to me that when she helped develop the first multidisciplinary youth gender clinic in the States, in Boston in 2007, all sorts of resource constraints inherent to the American medical system and the structure of the Boston clinic prevented her from truly adopting the Dutch approach, and 2) this Reuters article in which the reporters found that none of the clinics they contacted were following the Dutch protocol. 

This Dutch protocol is not a panacea. Definitely read this and this for important critiques of it and the research underpinning it. But it seems hard to argue with the theory that the more you get to know a kid, and the more you come to understand how their gender questions connect to other problems they are grappling with, the lower the probability that you will make a mistake and administer them medicine that won’t help them or which they will later regret.

As for “this wall with people’s minds totally closed down,” look, there’s definitely still some of that going on. But there are cracks in the wall. Reuters and the Times have very talented reporters looking into this. The American Academy of Pediatrics, while re-upping a policy statement staunchly supporting youth gender medicine that was widely ridiculed by people who know what they’re talking about, has agreed to a supposedly independent evidence review (we’ll see). 

Part of the insane backlash from GLAAD and others to the Times reporting, in my view, reflects an acknowledgement that this conversation has broken out a little — there’s a bit of desperation to it. All the attempted bullying and lying and attempts at unpersoning or un-careering, while still very unpleasant to experience (I feel awful for the Times reporters targeted by other journalists in that profoundly dishonest open letter and think that the presence of any journalist’s name on it should be a black mark on their career and credibility until they explain themselves), just haven’t worked. The conversation is happening. It was always going to happen because of the European countries who looked into these treatments and found the evidence base to be shockingly lacking.

Anyway, I am bad at prognosticating, but gun to head I think the lawsuits will be a big deal when there are enough of them. What I said last night was approximately: when a critical mass of big, awful detransition lawsuits with colorful details are filed, those lawsuits will have a disproportionate effect. And in fact a couple of them just emerged, including this one listing both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the pediatrician who wrote that controversial policy as defendants. (If you read it, please do so with a grain of salt — this is the plaintiff’s argument and we don’t yet know how the defendants will respond or if they can rebut some of the factual claims.)

People are drawn to awful stories of medical negligence. When there are enough of them here, that will undoubtedly have consequences, not least because certain liability concerns will become a lot more salient in the eyes of providers. I don’t think this is a good way to get this issue back on course — the presence of a few lawsuits doesn’t tell us how common these negative outcomes are, how common detransition is, and so forth. But if I had to guess, yes, the lawsuits will have a major effect simply by shining a light on what youth gender medicine looks like at its worst. In the meantime, there’s more journalism in the pipeline, certain groups skeptical of youth gender transition are gaining muscle, and it’s becoming increasingly unrealistic to shut down this conversation. So I think there is hope that we land in a reasonable, compassionate, evidence-based place.

I used to be a fan of Vaush but grew to dislike him over time. I was excited when you said you’d debate him but disappointed when it didn’t happen. Is that off the table? —Noah

I’d be open to it, but I honestly didn’t pursue it that aggressively. I’m not that familiar with this world of lefty political streaming but it just seems. . . awful? I don’t know if it’s audience capture or how much content they have to produce (meaning they have to pretend to be informed about all sorts of subjects where they know very little), but it just seems like a remarkably toxic place.

From what I can tell, Vaush isn’t as bad as the worst ones, but what happens when, during the stream, I explain to him that, well, to really understand my gripes with that 2022 paper by Diana Tordoff and her colleagues, you have to understand that they used this statistical technique that I wasn’t an expert in, but I talked to this guy who is an expert, and he said it was the right choice, and also there’s this table in the supplementary appendix where. . . . It just takes a lot of explaining. It works in print, but saying it out loud is more challenging. And remember that this whole time, Vaush would likely be peppering me with questions, demanding I clarify this or that, and his viewers would be spamming the chat with FUCK YOU TRANSPHOBE, etc. I’m just not sure it would be edifying for anyone, so while I’m not going to back down if Vaush really wants to do it, it certainly isn’t a priority. 

I think one potential solution — albeit a somewhat boring one — would be if I’m allowed to basically present for 15 minutes before the conversation proceeds. Like, here are my points, here’s my evidence, and so on. Then Vaush or his audience could respond to what I’ve actually presented, allowing for a more structured exchange. We saw what happened in the case of a less-structured, off-the-cuff exchange when I called into The Majority Report.

Just want to be clear that I’m very open to debate and conversation. I’m writing this from my L.A. hotel, and after my talk yesterday, people were able to ask me whatever they wanted. Interestingly, there was an LGBT law group tabling outside the lecture hall where I was speaking as a form of (very low-key, chill, civil) protest. I walked over and gave them my contact information on a slip of paper, saying I’d be on campus for a couple days and would be happy to meet up with any of them who wanted, though there was no obligation. I haven’t heard from them and don’t expect to, and with the exception of one trans graduate student who asked a good and thoughtful question, basically all the questions — and there enough questions that we went over time — were from folks who were sympathetic to my work. I found that disappointing, as I would have preferred for my critics to show up. There seems to be a lot of anger and vitriol but very little appetite for genuine conversation, and based on some of Vaush’s comments about me and others, I’m not convinced he’s coming from a good place, to be honest.

Either way, these sorts of exchanges do have to be structured the right way or they melt down. This is not a new opinion on my part. 

Your favorite international destination? —Steve

I have a strong connection to Berlin, just because it was the first and only place I lived abroad, I think it’s wonderful and livable in a lot of ways, and I’ll always seek to go back there when I can. I also love going to London because, well, it’s London, and I’ve made some journo friends there in recent years. I’m grateful I got to see some of Colombia and Bolivia as well.

But there are so many places I haven’t been. I’ve only been to one city in Spain (Barcelona) and one in France (Paris), I’ve been to very few places in Europe overall, and none in Italy. I’ve been almost nowhere in the Middle East, and I haven’t stepped foot in Asia. It’s really important to me that I get outside my comfort zone a little bit, and see cultures that are genuinely different (even if I’ll inevitably see the tourism-adulterated versions of those cultures).

So I guess my priority, if I had time to do a big trip, would be to see some combination of Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, Thailand, Cambodia, and Singapore. But it’s just so daunting, logistically. I regret not having realized how important and incredible travel can be much earlier in life. Kids: PRIORITIZE TRAVEL IF YOU ARE ABLE TO. It is not realistic for everyone, and like so much else it’s a matter of money, which is a matter of luck, but if you have the resources, you should prioritize traveling. 

My question: What is Katie really like? And I don’t know why this came to mind, but my freshman year (1980) I remember the laundry room of my dorm having graffiti — “Save Soviet Jews!” Underneath someone scrawled — “Win valuable prizes!” —Rhysling

Very good line! I was quite young but I vaguely remember hearing horror stories that inspired attempts to extract Soviet Jews in the late 1980s, and I think my maternal grandfather (born in the U.S.) was involved in those efforts.

Katie is great in person. Not very different from her persona on the podcast — maybe a bit less blunt and teasing. Around this time last year we did our tour, and it was going to involve many hours in the car together. Part of me was like “Uh oh — what if we just don’t like one another in person?” I think I was discounting the fact that that would basically be impossible given that we had spent literally hundreds of hours talking at that point. We had a really good time. Obviously, with anyone you work with, there will sometimes be various bits of tension or disagreement, and we both suck at anything involving business or logistics, but overall I’m exceptionally grateful for the partnership. . . and for the friendship (AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW <3 ).

(1) Have you been pleased with the uptake of your book? What did you learn from the whole book writing/publishing/marketing process, from start to finish? Are you thinking about another book project in the near future? If so, what themes might you write on? 

(2) Are you more or less or equally optimistic about journalism in the United States now than a decade ago? Explain. 

(3) What sort of music are you enjoying these days? Thank you, Jesse! —Anon

A three-parter!

(1) The book didn’t sell that well (AMAZON LINK HERE!!!!!!!!). My agent tells me the pandemic may have been a factor. That’s okay. I’m still proud of it, I feel like it got good reviews, and I’ve gotten some nice emails from folks who found it helpful. Selling a book is weird, man. I was so lucky with the initial rollout — I had adapted essays printed in both The New York Times Sunday Review and Wall Street Journal’s Saturday essay. You’d think that would nudge sales! It apparently didn’t. A friend of mine went through something similar — a release-day (if memory serves) Sunday Review essay but weak sales.

It’s all so weird and random that I can’t say for sure what I learned from the process, other than that it is (apparently) hard to get people to actually buy a book. I think part of the problem might have been that The Quick Fix was a bit negative, overall, and told people something they didn’t necessarily want to hear: a lot of stuff they want to believe in is wrong or overhyped. But I’m really just speculating here, because obviously I thought it told important stories and helped people understand common problems in science. Maybe the more salable version would have been Everyone’s going about social science wrong — HERE’S the way to do it. But I just don’t think there are easy answers! I did have some examples of how to improve science in a later chapter but that wasn’t the bulk of the book.

When I started the book, I’d left New York magazine and didn’t have a plan for my pro-book professional life. If I were still in that situation, weak first-book sales would have put me in a potentially difficult situation. But I got EXTREMELY lucky with this newsletter and the podcast, so I really can’t complain. 

As for future book projects — stay tuned. Let’s just say I am hopeful.

(2) Less optimistic. The business model for real reporting has collapsed almost entirely. I’m glad that certain Substackian spaces have opened up for people like me, which has been life- and career-changing, but that won’t fund the most important reporting. All we can hope for at the moment is for the few legacy-outlet winners of recent years, like the Times and The Atlantic, to keep funding ambitious reporting, but it’s a big country (and world) and more and more of it seems to be going uncovered. It’s a disaster. (On the narrower question of whether things have improved within media since the worst excesses and illiberal impulses of The Reckoning, yes, things have certainly gotten better, I think, even if some lefty publications remain just as crazy as they were then, or have gotten even more so.)

(3) I’m always listening to the same shit, meaning a steady rotation of Modest Mouse, The National, and other stereotypical Brooklyn whiteboy groups and artists. Here are two more potentially interesting/unusual entries to my Spotify rotation:

Album: All Human — Teenagers, You Don’t Have to Die! 

I may have recommended it before but I recently rediscovered it. It’s quite weird and dark but “hauntingly beautiful” (I’m not smart enough at music criticism to do anything but revert to clichés.) It’s about being young and manic and gay and lonely and having been fucked up by religion, I think.

Track to start with: “And So Peter Dances”

It’s just a rollickingly fun take on being desperately lonely. 🙃

Lyrics I like: From “Asleep on the Church Steps”

    In the days when you were young, 

    a queer machine in robes of color 

    with radiant pink and purple thoughts

    It turns out movement just 

    goes unnoticed

    [a bit later]

    In the days before your love, 

    an oddity in a nervous summer 

    with blatant antisocial thoughts

    It turns out movement just 

    goes unnoticed

I like the little vein of hope in there — love is coming!

Album: Told Slant — Going By

I have rarely encountered a band that contains such a clear mish-mash of two other bands: a lot of the guitar licks and banjo stuff just is early Modest Mouse. Like, perfectly so. You’ll hear it if you know what you’re talking about — “Trailer Trash” kept popping into my head. And then the singer, Felix Walworth, sounds SO MUCH like Jamie Stewart from Xiu Xiu. This is very sad, not-subtle, lo-fi, I-am-sad-because-I-miss-my-ex stuff, and I think it works incredibly well as long as you don’t have too strong an aversion to that sort of thing. It’s also a subtly clever album title. Walworth is nonbinary and “going by” could refer to both identity stuff and also to time.

Track To Start With: “Eggs in a Basket”

One of the most beautiful songs I’ve heard in quite some time. I can’t decide whether it should be three minutes longer or whether that would somehow ruin it.

Lyrics I Like: From “High Dirge”

    And I need you ’round

    Like the ground needs a figure 

    just to be something at all

I dunno, I realize this might not be for everyone, but I just found it to be a really creative and evocative way to express something that is hard to be original about.

Anyway, if I’m going to recommend a band like Told Slant, which as much as I like them is the sort of music you listen to while soaking in a lukewarm tub scrolling through Facebook photos of that girl from your college English class you always regretted you never talked to (20 years ago isn’t that long, right? Would it be weird to send a message???), I also need to give you guys something that sounds like it was both written and performed immediately after someone did six lines of coke.

And so. . . 

BONUS SINGLE TRACK: “Dimed Out” by Titus Andronicus

Not a new song and not an unknown one among folks with punkier tastes, but goddamn do I like to listen to this while I’m running. I also think the lyrics are shockingly good and clever given what a throw-noise-against-the-wall-and-see-what sticks song this is:

    I used to like walking with my eyes down

    I’d sleep all day and fret away the night hours

    But then I saw the sun and felt its light’s power

    And I found out the planet ain’t no private house

    Now I turn a brave bully to a shy coward

    I make a loud lout silent as a quiet mouse

    Then I make them hand over the white cloud

    And then they’re leaving me with a polite bow

    And I’ve got plans I haven’t time to write down

    I’ll incite a riot, fire flying all around

    When I’m crying out, I’m howling with the wild hounds

    Don’t wanna buy an ounce

    For me, the right amount is the entire pound

    I only like it when it’s dimed out

    I only like it when it’s dimed out

    I only like it when it’s dimed out

    When it’s dimed out, when it’s dimed out, when it’s dimed out

    I don’t chase after clocks or calendars

    I bow down not to masters, gods, nor managers

    Cause all the greatest artists, they were amateurs

    Unembarrassed, dressed in only bandages

    And I don’t read rules or adhere to rituals

    I’m an impatient underdog indivisible

    And my challengers are talentless imbeciles

    When my chalice is full, I am invincible

    I don’t listen to parents or priests or principals

    Inconsiderate of little individuals

    When they ration out their miniscule residuals

    Shit by the fistful

    As long as there’s a law, I’ll be a criminal 

I have my disappointments with Drew Magary, but if memory serves he’d usually include a “Pregame Song That Makes Me Want To Run Through A Goddamn Brick Wall” in his excellent Thursday Afternoon NFL Dick Joke Jamboroo, and “Dimed Out” is the platonic ideal of that type of music. AND MY CHALLENGERS ARE TALENTLESS IMBECILES.

Patrick Stickles is a degenerate genius, or a genius degenerate, or whatever. I still haven’t gotten deep into his discography beyond The Monitor, which I highly recommend if you like this type of music (punk rock meets the Civil War!), but I need to.

You publish so regularly and dive so deep and also seem to travel a lot and plan events. What’s a workweek like for you? —l’artiste manqué

I feel like an extremely disorganized individual. I procrastinate, I don’t always know exactly what I should be working on, and I have trouble with task-switching, which is necessary in my line of work. That said, when I’m locked in on something I’m capable of being quite productive and writing a lot of words in a relatively short period of time. To repeat a phrase, I’d say I’m a high-variance worker in general. People would probably be shocked at how unproductive I am on some days, and equally shocked at how productive I am on others.

It’s basically a juggling act to keep everything going. I’m not meaning to kiss up to you guys, but the fact that Singal-Minded readers are fine with me publishing six or seven times a month, which is less than other Substackers in my orbit produce, has helped me immensely. Like, seriously. I could not do these deep dives and the podcast and the other stuff I’m working on if I were responsible for writing a lot more on this newsletter. So thank you for that.

I don’t have any one workday routine. I should probably develop one. Generally speaking, my best days are the ones where I wake up, get coffee, and simply start writing (or reading, if it’s more of a reading day) at a coffee shop or in my office. If I’m really working by 9:00 or 9:30, it’ll be a good day. Other days, other stuff gets in the way. I’ve found getting off to a good start matters a lot, which is strange because I’ve never thought of myself as a morning person.

I do respond pretty well to firm deadlines that I put on my Google calendar, and also simply to to-do lists that I can cross off as I go. But I really would like to get more organized. It’s an area in which I’ve struggled. I will say that I’m very lucky that I can basically work from anywhere and that other than coordinating with Katie, I can completely make my own hours. I’ve basically managed to carve out a work life for myself that allows me to skirt some of my weaknesses and capitalize on some of my strengths.

Point is, no one should take advice from me on productivity or organization. Or music, as we have now seen. I give good pizza recommendations, though — of this I am sure.

Would you agree that the most fundamental problem with 21st Century Western Progressivism is epistemic? If this cannot be challenged with rationality (because that concept, like shared experience or objectivity, is oppressive), then what tools remain? How do we talk productively about a worldview that is essentially religious? —Miguelitro

I know that “it’s more complicated than that” is a tired refrain, but I do think it’s a bit more complicated than that. “Progressivism” is a broad level and there’s been very intense infighting, within progressivism, over the important subjects you’re raising. I wrote a 2020 newsletter that I titled “There’s An Actual Ideological And Epistemic Crackup Happening On The Left And It Can’t Be Bad-Faithed Away,” and I still think that’s true.

Long story short, there are plenty of progressives who disagree that the ideal of objectivity is “oppressive.” Now, this concept has been challenged, and I think that’s quite useful because in many human situations true objectivity is, in fact, impossible. A lot of this crackup has to do with taking fundamentally useful ideas or intuitions and then charging off with them to Crazyville.

Coupla examples:

Reasonable insight about objectivity: It’s hard to find examples of human processes that are truly objective, because all sorts of different choices are made along the way that are values-based, because humans are biased, and for a million other reasons. If someone claims to be truly objective or unbiased, we should be very skeptical.

Express train to Crazyville: The concepts of objectivity and neutrality are inherently oppressive and journalists and academics should run like hell from them.

Reasonable insight about intersectionality: People face oppression or discrimination along different lines. A black woman might have different experiences from a black man, and if we want to understand how discrimination works, we need to account for these differences. Let’s call this “intersectionality.”

Express train to Crazyville: Intersectionality means that if a black person says something about racism, white people need to shut up and listen, because they are less oppressed.

I’m heartened by the pushback to Crazyville claims I’m seeing in media outlets and academia, though I know in some places the Crazyville folks are winning.

I agree that for some folks in the Crazyville camp, their worldview is essentially religious. I do get the same vibe talking to the most out-there lefty types that I used to get in my few, futile attempts arguing with evangelical Christians. There is just this fairly robotic-seeming recitation of platitudes, a real discomfort with the idea that they might be wrong, and so on. That doesn’t describe everyone who has strong ideological beliefs, but it certainly does describe some of them.

So I think the first step is to make a good-faith effort to figure out who can be engaged with, and who is just too deep into this stuff to connect with, at least for now (people’s views can change, especially when they’re young). You can also simply point out the consequences of the policies they’re calling for. Is cutting off access to advanced math classes for everyone really a path to equity? Are the claims about standardized testing used to remove it from college and grad school admissions robust? If black people are so against defunding, let alone abolishing, the police, why is that the focus of so many leftist criminal justice reform groups?

In other words: ask fair, good-faith questions, and see if anyone on the other side is willing to answer. That’s the only way through. Drag these conversations out into the sunlight. A lot of folks with radical views are opposed to debate and in favor of no-platforming, shaming, and so on because they understand their ideas are unpopular, and they might even subconsciously understand that they themselves lack the tools to defend them.

So there’s hope, I think!

Okay, that’s it for now. But for a sneak preview, here’s one of the questions I will definitely be taking on in Part 2:

As an admittedly heterodox progressive, but an undeniable principled progressive (as opposed to the more practical-based center-leftism of, e.g., Yglesias and Chait), how has the left-wing embrace of Hamas caused you to reconsider who you consider as allies? Even those who are normally opposed to identity politics and with whom you often relate (for instance, Freddie deBoer) have toed the line of outright anti-Zionism, and it’s hard to find any unabashed leftist who acknowledges the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and security, even if they are against the actual politics of that Jewish state. (As an aside, their cheerleading of terrorism and stoking of anti-Semitism up to and including clear pogroms only reinforces the practical need for Israel, of course.) Why is it so hard for leftists to acknowledge that Israel is entitled to exist? Why is a one-state Yugoslavia an obvious nonstarter, but a one-state Palestine (to be ruled, naturally, by genocidal and fundamentalist Muslims) the sine qua non of the political left? Why can’t criticism of Israeli policies (especially settlement policy in the West Bank) be separated from Israel’s full withdrawal from Gaza? Why do so many lefties decide that there’s room in their coalition for murderers who execute gays on sight, but not a well-meaning liberal who uses the wrong pronouns sometimes? —wes brooks

Should be able to answer this one conclusively in a sentence or two. More soon!

Questions? Comments? Actually, no more questions — I’ve got plenty. Comments are fine, though. I’m at singalminded@gmail.com. The photo is of the very satisfying jetlagged meal I had two nights ago at a place called Broxton Brewery & Public House: a spicy mac and cheese with garlic toast. Had to carbo-load for the talk.