When I was in my mid-twenties me and a close friend were using dating apps a fair bit. On a good month I was maybe getting more than 10 matches. The other guy had notched up four figures.
Don’t feel sorry for me: I know other men who would consider 10 matches pretty good, and there are after all only 30 days in a month. (It’s called dating for a reason.) But the phenomenon of the ultra-desirable male nonetheless shows the brutal unfairness of dating.
One can therefore understand a recent movement that “strikes back at the gatekeepers of beauty”, as chronicled in a recent New York Times piece. The aim is to redefine hotness as something that can be asserted by the individual, rather than judged by society at large.
UnHerd’s Kat Rosenfield gives a comprehensive critique of the piece here. In a withering rebuttal of the story that starts the Times’s piece, she writes that “when a woman posts a video of herself eating spaghetti and receives a lustful outpouring in return, it’s not because of her confidence. It’s because she’s a conventionally attractive 28-year-old putting something in her mouth.”
It has ever been thus, of course. But dating apps have made the unequal distribution far more quantifiable than before. One study claims that with straight dating on Tinder 80% of women are chasing the top 20% of men, and the remaining men are picking up the female stragglers.
In any other field, such inequality would lead to calls for redistributing the means of – ahem – reproduction. But clearly when it comes to personal relationships and sex this is a non-starter. And so some activists are trying to redefine what counts as sexy.
The trouble is that this comes up against material reality. Just as you can’t train somebody out of finding something sexy, you can’t train them into finding something sexy. The loins want what they want, whatever words you use to describe it.
The Financial Times’ Janan Ganesh is one of the best writers in the British press. Even his critics must admit he is a master of style, his being instantly recognisable and enjoyable to read. If there is a complaint, it’s that his writing is so stylised it can mask a lack of substance.
It’s to that point that I reference his recent column on package deal politics. Doubtless I’ve spent more time thinking about why people believe things than most, but it should be common knowledge now that the link between being pro-abortion and pro-environment is better explained by tribalism than logical consistency.
Given our emphasis on individuality, no doubt the view is still unwelcome to many. And the irony is that those who are quickest to label their opponents as irrational dupes are probably those most duped themselves. As Ganesh and others have noted, it’s the smartest people (in the sense of possessing mental horsepower) who are best at rationalising their beliefs, however acquired.
Similarly, those with unconventional politics are the likeliest to have thought them through, as Substack and similar platforms have made increasingly clear. Though of course I would say that.
Speaking of smart people saying mad things, one of the most interesting aspects of discussions around transgenderism is their capacity to make accomplished people talk bollocks. As the saying goes, some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual would say them1.
Latest to show this is sports pundit Nick Heath. Lately he bemoaned that the Rugby Football Union’s is considering banning trans women from female matches, with the pundit arguing that there is not enough research into the risks involved. “Assumption cannot be the basis of policy,” he said.
But in the absence of evidence, of course it can. Indeed, Heath is assuming that it is safe for trans women to play female games. Unless you want a total and complete shutdown of women’s rugby until we figure out what’s going on, you must pick your assumptions.
And it will be reasonable to anyone who has watched 30 seconds of rugby and met members of both sexes that men’s size and strength poses a risk to women. The likelihood that such advantages are negated when trans women undergo medical interventions is slim, although sporting authorities are welcome to run their tests.
The funny thing is that Heath is right at the higher level: all sport is unfair. People are born with wildly disparate potentials (see above discussion on hotness), and some are luckier in the training and support they can access. Lionel Messi no doubt put in the hours to become one of football’s best players, but he was also lucky2.
Contrary to Heath’s specific argument, if anything this should lead to more tiering and categorisation, not less. The only reason more sports don’t is that most of them aren’t as dangerous as boxing, and competitive structures mitigate against dangerously-mismatched games.
Ultimately female-only contests are about representation for women, who would otherwise struggle to compete in the top tiers of most sport. (Exceptions exist, including shooting.) Even Serena Williams, a doyenne of progressive sports fans, admitted she wouldn’t be competitive in elite male tennis.
The trouble for trans activists is that this representation can only continue if male-bodied people are excluded. The alternative is that you get podium shots like this. Probably Heath is a nice guy, but he has succumbed to sophistry to justify his politics.
Usually attributed to George Orwell, who at least said something similar.
There’s a decent book by cricketer and writer Ed Smith that elaborates on this beyond sport.