0:00
/
0:00
Transcript

Skilled Incompetence: Becoming love and joy

Informed Dissent for the week ending January 17, 2026

Informed Dissent — January 17, 2026

News of the Week & Deep Dive

This week’s episode moves from state-level political turmoil to Supreme Court oral arguments, with a few unexpected cultural and intellectual detours along the way.

Segment One — New Jersey at a Crossroads

We open with the unfolding conflict inside New Jersey’s political and advocacy landscape, where a proposed “gender health care shield law” failed to pass before the close of the legislative session. That story, and the broader institutional turmoil at Garden State Equality, set the stage for a deeper conversation about how organizations respond to internal contradiction, external pressure, and reputational risk.

Along the way, we take a few side roads:

  • What a zombie apocalypse in World War Z can teach us about cascading institutional failure.

  • Why Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring still matters when thinking about how societies respond to environmental and systemic risk.

  • Chris Argyris’ Overcoming Organizational Defenses and how organizations protect themselves from information they do not want to hear.

  • A brief discussion of Jennifer Bilek’s reporting on networked advocacy influence in the gender policy space.

If you want the full written breakdown of the New Jersey story, we covered it here:

Courage Coalition
New Jersey at a Crossroads: A Legislative Deadline, a Trans Medical-Intervention Battle, and a Crisis Inside the State’s Largest LGBT Organization
Today, January 12, the New Jersey Legislature convenes for its final voting session of the 2024–2025 biennial term. When the gavel falls at the end of the day, any bills that have not cleared both chambers will expire, and a new legislature will be sworn in tomorrow morning. For advocates across New Jersey’s gender-identity policy debates, it is a deadl…
Read more

Segment Two — Supreme Court Sports Cases

In the second half, returning guest Glenna Goldis lawyer and author of Bad Facts

joins us for legal analysis of the two cases argued this week at the U.S. Supreme Court:

  • Little v. Hecox (Idaho)

  • West Virginia v. B.P.J.

We unpack the constitutional questions before the Court, Title IX implications, standards of review, and what oral argument signals about where the justices may be headed. We also discuss how these cases fit into the wider national strategy around sex-based protections in law and sport.

Closing Reflections

As always, we wrap by reflecting on the growing community around this show, the people showing up in real life at hearings and rallies, and the many listeners quietly processing complex family and cultural conflicts alongside us each week.

Share

If you enjoyed this episode, please like, subscribe, and share Informed Dissent. Independent media only works when listeners help build the audience and the impact.

And as always — stay informed, and stay ready to dissent.

Discussion about this video

User's avatar

Ready for more?