1) share how you showed the DSAer* that there’s an argument for the bill from a trans perspective, and 2) acknowledge the difficult work of examining why we believe something, and the problems of tribal behavior, no matter the tribe
*something I used to be, before the authoritarianism became apparent to me
And thank you for 58:45-1:00:57, in which you point out the hypocrisy of the same folks who say they’re opposed to fascism, engaging in this conduct.
Eliza: thank you for sharing Sancho’s beauty with us! He is so, so gorgeous.
Lisa: My jaw is still on the floor, about the conflict of interest, omg. Thank you for your participation on that gender ideology panel, which I watched back in January—but it made a lasting impression on me, what you said & how you said it (e.g., “it’s FINE, if you believe that”). Principled liberalism, embodied. I may need to channel that soon. I’ve been sticking my head above the parapet even more and am bracing myself for displeasure from members of my tribe who don’t yet realize that they’ve accepted as fact a number of things that are actually beliefs, not facts. Wish me luck.
Ben: congrats & thank you for the book! I’m eager to read it.
To all: what a great suggestion, doing an entry-level kind of episode. Thank you in advance for that. <3
He is beautiful! I spent like four months monitoring the local fine-feline rescue for a Siamese mix to be up for adoption. They insisted Sancho was a Siamese mix but I'm sure he's a ragdoll.
What always impresses me about these discussions is your openness in exploring what you have each experienced and how it affected you, not in any way a dry examination of the issues. We were horrified to hear about what happened to Cori, and also on reading Jamie’s Substack piece on the extent of the threat on an ongoing basis. We contribute via donation to the LGB Coalition, but it will never be enough, particularly given the burden Cori, Jamie, and all those testifying are carrying. And to hear Lisa’s story was not only infuriating, but even more than that, heartbreaking.
We look for ways to volunteer with and otherwise support sex-realist organizations and continue to have small conversations with friends and neighbors in bright blue Morningside Heights—mostly without much success, but we try. Last week, while candidates were out petitioning to get signatures to get on the ballot for upcoming local elections, we engaged staff and candidates in conversation about their stances to the extent we could (one was a staffer for Brad Lander, so we had Lisa very much in mind). We made clear we could not sign petitions for candidates that support gender ideology over women’s rights (which is all of them).
This week, we have been visiting friends in the Hudson Valley we haven’t seen since we moved back to NYC, all liberals. While we looked forward to seeing them, and they us, after all this time, it has been bittersweet and often tremendously alienating. They are all extremely distressed about the current administration, but without any idea of how badly the Democrats have gone wrong or recognition that the Democrats’ own stances contributed to the Democratic defeat. So, always, in ways that sound similar to what Lisa and Eliza described with their friends, there is this awful balancing between wanting to retain the friendships, but feeling that the foundation on which they are based is false.
We feel best when there is something we can do proactively, no matter how small. This week, for example, I sat down and wrote thank yous to Jonah Wheeler and another NH Democrat who voted yes on the NH bill, then worked it up into the basis of a possible “call to action” that two organizations I volunteer with can use, if desired. That, at least, felt constructive.
Thank you for continuing to speak about this topic and trying to educate the general population. You are a lifeline to those of us who are parents fighting against the ideology and trying to protect our kids.
You all sound discouraged these last two episodes. Please have a look at Mattias Desmet, who has done work on mass formation psychosis and how to stop it. Essentially he says that it just takes 5% of people to keep speaking the truth to eventually end the psychosis.
Thank you for being the 5% of exceptional people who bravely speak the truth
5% is encouraging. If only there were millions and millions of dollars available to get that message out more quickly and broadly. Trans activists have certainly enjoyed ample funding for their campaigns. Sigh. The only way out is through. Keep at it everyone 💪
Lisa, I'd just like to say that your recount of the hideous response to your years of labor really moved me. You're a danger to those boneheads because you tell the truth. Please be proud.
Also--just as an aside, you've mentioned issues with your own body image. Let me give you a bird's-eye view, from the other side of the computer "window": you look delicate, natural, maternal, gentle, uncontrived. And your inquiries are formidable.
I agree with Miki. I am grateful to you and the other dissenters for providing us with investigative skills to keep asking key questions. It’s outrageous and not surprising that a superintendent’s wife has a revenue stream that places profits over the welfare of children, not to mention the clear conflict of interest. Also I finished sewing my purple pants.
It was great to meet the five of you, and the other Founding Members as well! I’m sure to be around with my various thoughts and theories; just ignore me if I get annoying. 😅
I agree with Eliza about the assumption of agreement. An incident that comes to mind: Visiting my alma mater, a little over a decade ago now. I went with a male friend who was a fellow alum, and he wanted to say hello to some friends and former co-workers in facilities management. This would have been around the time gender ideology was starting to heat up on college campuses. One of the men we met wanted to say something about the bathrooms, I think, but I never found out for sure. He, this middle-aged blue-collar man, looked at me, a twenty-something white alumna of this progressive liberal arts college, and I saw real fear in his eyes. And he wouldn't say it to me. He pulled my friend aside and whispered whatever he had to say to him, and the two of them had a short conversation that I was not privy to. I don't blame him. He knew my friend and trusted him. He did not know me beyond what he saw, and so, he did not trust me.
Lisa’s points about the psychology of the cancelled and the self-fulfilling prophecy are apt. And Cori’s interjection about indulgences. And Ben, I’ve been in online progressive communities that have literally devolved into people typing “SHAME SHAME SHAME” at each other. There is something so very religious about all of it.
Lisa, your story about the conflict of interest of the superintendent and his wife sounds like it should be looked into by a New York publication - or 60 Minutes, even. This is influencing the lives of, as you said, a million children in the NYC schools and their families.
I agree! But I don't think they would see it as a conflict of interest. The superintendent is simply insisting that he knows he's on the right side of history in part because of his wife's "expertise." They see themselves as fighting a civil rights battle. For mainstream media to point out these conflicts of interest, they would first have to *see* them as conflicts instead of as expert consensus guiding education in the correct direction.
Scientists who publish in peer reviewed journals always have to disclose their potential conflicts of interest... So at least in theory, there should be an awareness that even the untouchable EXPERTS(tm) can be conflicted when opining or even publishing data on any subject matter. Agree that is clearly not on the superintendent's mind though.
About 101 level. There are other sources for that, especially Gender a Wider Lens. A couple stand alone episodes that are 101 sound fine. But we NEED to hear from you guys at the HIGH level you are at. It may mean people have to work to catch up, but it’s VERY important that you get the HIGH level out there. Your last few episodes especially show that HIGH level. Thanks!
Yes, perhaps those of us who want to initiate others into this issue should be looking at other resources (Genspect is one I send people to--they have some basic resources).
Many of us listening to you have been down this rabbit hole for a while and we appreciate the high level of nuance you all bring to your conversations.
Having said that--yes, sometimes I think you need a moderator who would interject and ask you to define, or clarify, or explain a reference, concept, or person. It's hard to do for oneself. Katie Herzog is actually pretty good at insisting people stop and explain something. (Or maybe one of you on a rotating basis could be the episode's moderator?)
I think we would just do the one 101 episode! It wouldn't be an ongoing thing, just a resource people might be able to share more readily than our more in-the-weeds podcasts.
I think one 101 episode would be great, especially if it included a little bit of each of your backgrounds and how you came to this place of informed dissent. You all have powerful (and different) personal stories - and yes, they are all available other places, but having them together could really show how thoughtful people can have different perspectives that don’t come from hate and fear. I’m thinking this could be the one episode that we can send to newbies that may help them start to consider different viewpoints. Hopefully some of them will get hooked and come back for more.
I honestly don't think they've been conceded or truly gatekept, it's more that the trans train has stalled a bit so adding the otherkin and therians and furries and whatnot to the alphabet soup has been put on hold...for now.
If it has been gatekept it's only because a lot of trans people genuinely think those groups *are* dumb and they don't want the LGBTQ to be associated with people who think dying their skin and getting surgery can change their race or their species, but it's not out of conscious self awareness as far as I can tell, they don't see any parallels. Before I lost a whole bunch of my left wing friends I compared transgenderism to transracialism (and Otherkin) and it did not go don't well at all, because I was comparing obvious crazies to an oppressed minority whose situation is totally reality based.
Hearing Lisa’s story about the superintendent and his wife was so crazy. Maybe yall have already done this but I’d be interested in an episode focused on the many ways conflicts of interests behind the scenes have helped entrench gender identity into our culture. I.e. Doctors who profit off this care leading studies and suppressing ones that don’t support this treatment; non-profits fundraising off misleading suicide statistics; the relationship between money, politicians, and special groups; how non-profits train LGBTQ journalists to promote trans propaganda in legacy media, I think Jaime mentioned training judges at one point etc.
What Ben said about the mob mentality on both the Left and the Right made me think of how both sides accuse the other of being driven by hatred: the Left believes everyone who is critical of the transgender movement must be driven by hate of transgender people, while the Right insists that anyone who views Trump as the unfit sociopath that he is must be seeing him this way because they are consumed by hatred of him (TDS). Neither side will consider that the other may have rational reasons for their judgment, being guided by their analysis of the evidence rather than by emotion.
Similarly, this article from a couple of days ago in the Washington Post (https://archive.is/hzL02), written by a transactivist transwoman, argues that people who don't see transwomen as women must suffer from a lack of "imagination".
Absurdly, the author offers this analogy:
"By which I mean, only a person without imagination could think that Superman is 'really' Clark Kent. Only a person without imagination could think that a butterfly is 'really' a caterpillar. Or that a trans woman is 'really' a man."
Does the author not realize that making an analogy between a transwoman and a fictional character (not a bad one, as Kathleen Stock would point out) really undermines their argument? And that the relationship between a butterfly and a caterpillar is entirely different from both those of character-actor and transwoman-woman? This article's conclusion just shows how horribly confused this entire ideology is.
The author also notes that most of the "vitriol" is directed at transwomen, saying that "most of our nemeses seem oblivious to the existence of trans men". What the author seems to be oblivious to is that this observation should make it clear that none of this "vitriol" is really driven by transphobia, but rather by the way transwomen's rights in particular infringe of the rights of actual women. That this observation wasn't a lightbulb moment for the author but rather an occasion to emphasize their victim status reveals a stunning lack of insight, self-reflection, and empathy, or maybe a deliberate refusal to engage with other people's viewpoints.
Thank you for this discussion. One of you mentioned wondering who you were talking to— I think it was you, Lisa. Well, you are talking to people like me who live in hyper liberal areas who feel incredibly alone even though we live in urban settings. Your discussions keep me sane! And this one deeply resonated with me, especially the part about left framing of acceptable and non-acceptable ideas as morally correct vs sinful.
Am still listening, but two comments. First, when people make some sort of comment about politics or whatever, they do it as a bonding exercise, like talking about the weather. So when any of us--such as Lisa--try to chime in with some information or a different perspective, it's like we've laid a fart. What are we doing trying to mess up this calibrated bonding procedure by introducing potential conflict?
Second, emotional manipulation. I keep saying this but policy ought to be determined based on facts not feelings. The pitch that gender identity must replace sex is based on feelings over facts. "Oh but my trans child *feels* this way!" means that someone's feelings ought to be the basis of policy. Perhaps many policies are entirely feeling-based (it feels better to feed the homeless instead of upzone?) but we can't concede that. We must keep insisting that verifiability matters--sex is verifiable, gender is not.
Lisa, a comment/question on the military ban: I would agree that a blanket ban is a problem when no one can agree on a definition of trans, but how can people argue that trans people are always on the verge of suicide because of state bans on medicalizing minors, not allowing men on women's sports teams, or even just hearing the wrong pronoun but also insist this is appropriate for *any* type of military service?
First, I find the joking around to be distracting and contributing to a lack of focus. It’s important to remember that you are not just talking among yourselves — you are also talking to an audience. Joking and flippant remarks can work. Jesse and Katy on Blocked and Reported do this well, but they have a schtick and they are essentially playing their own characters. Works OK with a duo, but hard to pull off with 3 - 5 speakers.
Second, here is how I would suggest you keep a better focus. What I really like about the conversation is that you are — individually and also as a group — grappling with difficult issues. You display genuine intellectual curiosity and do not have your minds made up. What I think would help structure the show better would be to identify a specific, well-conceived question (or questions) that you want to address in each episode.
Cori: thank you for 29:56-33:22, in which you:
1) share how you showed the DSAer* that there’s an argument for the bill from a trans perspective, and 2) acknowledge the difficult work of examining why we believe something, and the problems of tribal behavior, no matter the tribe
*something I used to be, before the authoritarianism became apparent to me
And thank you for 58:45-1:00:57, in which you point out the hypocrisy of the same folks who say they’re opposed to fascism, engaging in this conduct.
Eliza: thank you for sharing Sancho’s beauty with us! He is so, so gorgeous.
Lisa: My jaw is still on the floor, about the conflict of interest, omg. Thank you for your participation on that gender ideology panel, which I watched back in January—but it made a lasting impression on me, what you said & how you said it (e.g., “it’s FINE, if you believe that”). Principled liberalism, embodied. I may need to channel that soon. I’ve been sticking my head above the parapet even more and am bracing myself for displeasure from members of my tribe who don’t yet realize that they’ve accepted as fact a number of things that are actually beliefs, not facts. Wish me luck.
Ben: congrats & thank you for the book! I’m eager to read it.
To all: what a great suggestion, doing an entry-level kind of episode. Thank you in advance for that. <3
He is beautiful! I spent like four months monitoring the local fine-feline rescue for a Siamese mix to be up for adoption. They insisted Sancho was a Siamese mix but I'm sure he's a ragdoll.
What always impresses me about these discussions is your openness in exploring what you have each experienced and how it affected you, not in any way a dry examination of the issues. We were horrified to hear about what happened to Cori, and also on reading Jamie’s Substack piece on the extent of the threat on an ongoing basis. We contribute via donation to the LGB Coalition, but it will never be enough, particularly given the burden Cori, Jamie, and all those testifying are carrying. And to hear Lisa’s story was not only infuriating, but even more than that, heartbreaking.
We look for ways to volunteer with and otherwise support sex-realist organizations and continue to have small conversations with friends and neighbors in bright blue Morningside Heights—mostly without much success, but we try. Last week, while candidates were out petitioning to get signatures to get on the ballot for upcoming local elections, we engaged staff and candidates in conversation about their stances to the extent we could (one was a staffer for Brad Lander, so we had Lisa very much in mind). We made clear we could not sign petitions for candidates that support gender ideology over women’s rights (which is all of them).
This week, we have been visiting friends in the Hudson Valley we haven’t seen since we moved back to NYC, all liberals. While we looked forward to seeing them, and they us, after all this time, it has been bittersweet and often tremendously alienating. They are all extremely distressed about the current administration, but without any idea of how badly the Democrats have gone wrong or recognition that the Democrats’ own stances contributed to the Democratic defeat. So, always, in ways that sound similar to what Lisa and Eliza described with their friends, there is this awful balancing between wanting to retain the friendships, but feeling that the foundation on which they are based is false.
We feel best when there is something we can do proactively, no matter how small. This week, for example, I sat down and wrote thank yous to Jonah Wheeler and another NH Democrat who voted yes on the NH bill, then worked it up into the basis of a possible “call to action” that two organizations I volunteer with can use, if desired. That, at least, felt constructive.
Keep up the good work! It’s awesome that you try and have courage to try
Thank you for continuing to speak about this topic and trying to educate the general population. You are a lifeline to those of us who are parents fighting against the ideology and trying to protect our kids.
You all sound discouraged these last two episodes. Please have a look at Mattias Desmet, who has done work on mass formation psychosis and how to stop it. Essentially he says that it just takes 5% of people to keep speaking the truth to eventually end the psychosis.
Thank you for being the 5% of exceptional people who bravely speak the truth
5% is encouraging. If only there were millions and millions of dollars available to get that message out more quickly and broadly. Trans activists have certainly enjoyed ample funding for their campaigns. Sigh. The only way out is through. Keep at it everyone 💪
Lisa, I'd just like to say that your recount of the hideous response to your years of labor really moved me. You're a danger to those boneheads because you tell the truth. Please be proud.
Also--just as an aside, you've mentioned issues with your own body image. Let me give you a bird's-eye view, from the other side of the computer "window": you look delicate, natural, maternal, gentle, uncontrived. And your inquiries are formidable.
Beautifully said. I so agree.
I agree with Miki. I am grateful to you and the other dissenters for providing us with investigative skills to keep asking key questions. It’s outrageous and not surprising that a superintendent’s wife has a revenue stream that places profits over the welfare of children, not to mention the clear conflict of interest. Also I finished sewing my purple pants.
It was great to meet the five of you, and the other Founding Members as well! I’m sure to be around with my various thoughts and theories; just ignore me if I get annoying. 😅
I agree with Eliza about the assumption of agreement. An incident that comes to mind: Visiting my alma mater, a little over a decade ago now. I went with a male friend who was a fellow alum, and he wanted to say hello to some friends and former co-workers in facilities management. This would have been around the time gender ideology was starting to heat up on college campuses. One of the men we met wanted to say something about the bathrooms, I think, but I never found out for sure. He, this middle-aged blue-collar man, looked at me, a twenty-something white alumna of this progressive liberal arts college, and I saw real fear in his eyes. And he wouldn't say it to me. He pulled my friend aside and whispered whatever he had to say to him, and the two of them had a short conversation that I was not privy to. I don't blame him. He knew my friend and trusted him. He did not know me beyond what he saw, and so, he did not trust me.
Lisa’s points about the psychology of the cancelled and the self-fulfilling prophecy are apt. And Cori’s interjection about indulgences. And Ben, I’ve been in online progressive communities that have literally devolved into people typing “SHAME SHAME SHAME” at each other. There is something so very religious about all of it.
Lisa, your story about the conflict of interest of the superintendent and his wife sounds like it should be looked into by a New York publication - or 60 Minutes, even. This is influencing the lives of, as you said, a million children in the NYC schools and their families.
I agree! But I don't think they would see it as a conflict of interest. The superintendent is simply insisting that he knows he's on the right side of history in part because of his wife's "expertise." They see themselves as fighting a civil rights battle. For mainstream media to point out these conflicts of interest, they would first have to *see* them as conflicts instead of as expert consensus guiding education in the correct direction.
Scientists who publish in peer reviewed journals always have to disclose their potential conflicts of interest... So at least in theory, there should be an awareness that even the untouchable EXPERTS(tm) can be conflicted when opining or even publishing data on any subject matter. Agree that is clearly not on the superintendent's mind though.
About 101 level. There are other sources for that, especially Gender a Wider Lens. A couple stand alone episodes that are 101 sound fine. But we NEED to hear from you guys at the HIGH level you are at. It may mean people have to work to catch up, but it’s VERY important that you get the HIGH level out there. Your last few episodes especially show that HIGH level. Thanks!
Yes, perhaps those of us who want to initiate others into this issue should be looking at other resources (Genspect is one I send people to--they have some basic resources).
Many of us listening to you have been down this rabbit hole for a while and we appreciate the high level of nuance you all bring to your conversations.
Having said that--yes, sometimes I think you need a moderator who would interject and ask you to define, or clarify, or explain a reference, concept, or person. It's hard to do for oneself. Katie Herzog is actually pretty good at insisting people stop and explain something. (Or maybe one of you on a rotating basis could be the episode's moderator?)
I think we would just do the one 101 episode! It wouldn't be an ongoing thing, just a resource people might be able to share more readily than our more in-the-weeds podcasts.
I think one 101 episode would be great, especially if it included a little bit of each of your backgrounds and how you came to this place of informed dissent. You all have powerful (and different) personal stories - and yes, they are all available other places, but having them together could really show how thoughtful people can have different perspectives that don’t come from hate and fear. I’m thinking this could be the one episode that we can send to newbies that may help them start to consider different viewpoints. Hopefully some of them will get hooked and come back for more.
I like the rotating basis idea.
I agree.
I recommend donating to those traveling to testify:
https://www.paypal.com/US/fundraiser/charity/5225044
Second this.
Concessions from the left: I think xenogenders were gatekept/conceded and pronouns in bio, pronouns circles got somewhat rejected as mainstream norm
Good points and the "xenogenders were gatekept" made me lol.
I honestly don't think they've been conceded or truly gatekept, it's more that the trans train has stalled a bit so adding the otherkin and therians and furries and whatnot to the alphabet soup has been put on hold...for now.
If it has been gatekept it's only because a lot of trans people genuinely think those groups *are* dumb and they don't want the LGBTQ to be associated with people who think dying their skin and getting surgery can change their race or their species, but it's not out of conscious self awareness as far as I can tell, they don't see any parallels. Before I lost a whole bunch of my left wing friends I compared transgenderism to transracialism (and Otherkin) and it did not go don't well at all, because I was comparing obvious crazies to an oppressed minority whose situation is totally reality based.
Perhaps you should sell “rabbit hole people” merch.
Hearing Lisa’s story about the superintendent and his wife was so crazy. Maybe yall have already done this but I’d be interested in an episode focused on the many ways conflicts of interests behind the scenes have helped entrench gender identity into our culture. I.e. Doctors who profit off this care leading studies and suppressing ones that don’t support this treatment; non-profits fundraising off misleading suicide statistics; the relationship between money, politicians, and special groups; how non-profits train LGBTQ journalists to promote trans propaganda in legacy media, I think Jaime mentioned training judges at one point etc.
What Ben said about the mob mentality on both the Left and the Right made me think of how both sides accuse the other of being driven by hatred: the Left believes everyone who is critical of the transgender movement must be driven by hate of transgender people, while the Right insists that anyone who views Trump as the unfit sociopath that he is must be seeing him this way because they are consumed by hatred of him (TDS). Neither side will consider that the other may have rational reasons for their judgment, being guided by their analysis of the evidence rather than by emotion.
Similarly, this article from a couple of days ago in the Washington Post (https://archive.is/hzL02), written by a transactivist transwoman, argues that people who don't see transwomen as women must suffer from a lack of "imagination".
Absurdly, the author offers this analogy:
"By which I mean, only a person without imagination could think that Superman is 'really' Clark Kent. Only a person without imagination could think that a butterfly is 'really' a caterpillar. Or that a trans woman is 'really' a man."
Does the author not realize that making an analogy between a transwoman and a fictional character (not a bad one, as Kathleen Stock would point out) really undermines their argument? And that the relationship between a butterfly and a caterpillar is entirely different from both those of character-actor and transwoman-woman? This article's conclusion just shows how horribly confused this entire ideology is.
The author also notes that most of the "vitriol" is directed at transwomen, saying that "most of our nemeses seem oblivious to the existence of trans men". What the author seems to be oblivious to is that this observation should make it clear that none of this "vitriol" is really driven by transphobia, but rather by the way transwomen's rights in particular infringe of the rights of actual women. That this observation wasn't a lightbulb moment for the author but rather an occasion to emphasize their victim status reveals a stunning lack of insight, self-reflection, and empathy, or maybe a deliberate refusal to engage with other people's viewpoints.
Thank you for this discussion. One of you mentioned wondering who you were talking to— I think it was you, Lisa. Well, you are talking to people like me who live in hyper liberal areas who feel incredibly alone even though we live in urban settings. Your discussions keep me sane! And this one deeply resonated with me, especially the part about left framing of acceptable and non-acceptable ideas as morally correct vs sinful.
Am still listening, but two comments. First, when people make some sort of comment about politics or whatever, they do it as a bonding exercise, like talking about the weather. So when any of us--such as Lisa--try to chime in with some information or a different perspective, it's like we've laid a fart. What are we doing trying to mess up this calibrated bonding procedure by introducing potential conflict?
Second, emotional manipulation. I keep saying this but policy ought to be determined based on facts not feelings. The pitch that gender identity must replace sex is based on feelings over facts. "Oh but my trans child *feels* this way!" means that someone's feelings ought to be the basis of policy. Perhaps many policies are entirely feeling-based (it feels better to feed the homeless instead of upzone?) but we can't concede that. We must keep insisting that verifiability matters--sex is verifiable, gender is not.
Lisa, a comment/question on the military ban: I would agree that a blanket ban is a problem when no one can agree on a definition of trans, but how can people argue that trans people are always on the verge of suicide because of state bans on medicalizing minors, not allowing men on women's sports teams, or even just hearing the wrong pronoun but also insist this is appropriate for *any* type of military service?
Two ideas for how to improve the show.
First, I find the joking around to be distracting and contributing to a lack of focus. It’s important to remember that you are not just talking among yourselves — you are also talking to an audience. Joking and flippant remarks can work. Jesse and Katy on Blocked and Reported do this well, but they have a schtick and they are essentially playing their own characters. Works OK with a duo, but hard to pull off with 3 - 5 speakers.
Second, here is how I would suggest you keep a better focus. What I really like about the conversation is that you are — individually and also as a group — grappling with difficult issues. You display genuine intellectual curiosity and do not have your minds made up. What I think would help structure the show better would be to identify a specific, well-conceived question (or questions) that you want to address in each episode.
I appreciate the joking. It lightens the air around a difficult subject. I especially enjoy Cori’s sense of humor and wish he’d speak up more.