Yes, You Need To Listen To "That" JVN Episode of Armchair expert
Or, when so-called progressives need to shut up and listen
I am a casual listener of “Armchair Expert.” I enjoy the rich discussions Dax Shepard and Monica Padman hold with engaging individuals.
I also adore Jonathan Van Ness. He* has a way of putting everyone at ease and is perhaps why Dax felt so comfortable getting into what was clearly a painful discussion about trans rights and the trans experience.
But, I am getting ahead of myself.
There's a lot of buzz around JVN's episode of “Armchair Expert,” with much of it framing the podcast as an attack on Van Ness and yet another example of faux progressivism from the so-called “left.”
In reality it was much more than that and a model for how important conversations can and should happen.
Before I continue, no person from a marginalized community should ever be forced into a position of having to defend their right to exist or speak on behalf of a community. As a Jew, I have been placed in that position, and it sucks.
It also sucks when a person is asked to speak about something else and it turns into a discussion on identity. This is what happened on “Armchair Expert.”
Jonathan Van Ness was invited on as a guest of the podcast to discuss his own podcast offerings and perhaps engage in some witty banter about the awesomeness of “Gay of Thrones.”
The conversation started off light and fun, with some mildly aggressive flirting directed at Shepard. Soon the interview veered into a discussion of politics and JVN calling out Shepard for being in a liberal bubble, which, as someone who lives in New York, I understand is absolutely necessary. Unlike myself and Shepard (who lives in California), Van Ness lives in Texas, where trans rights are in jeopardy and the issue is more than just an “interesting” topic to muse about within one’s inner circle
However it was a debate over the political leanings of The New York Times which launched the interview in a new direction.
Shepard claimed the Times is a left-leaning paper, citing its tendency to share more negative news about COVID-19.
Van Ness countered that the Times was not all that progressive, noting its decision to platform people with anti-trans views.
This set off an intense discussion on trans issues including sports inclusion and the right to affirmative care.
Shepard brought up many of the common arguments against allowing trans people (particularly trans women) to participate in sports as well as common fears about allowing children to receive gender affirming care.
Over and over Van Ness came back with facts and personal insight to try and help Shepard better understand the lived experience of the trans community.
Listening to the podcast, I could hear how emotionally exhausted JVN was and was impressed that he held his own and kept engaging.
And, I am also impressed that Shepard sat with the conversation and allowed himself to get uncomfortable. I am glad he and Padman acknowledged the unintended path of the episode and decided to air it, even if Shepard doesn't come across in the best light.
Too often, the issue of trans rights is framed as an all-or-nothing debate between anti-trans bigots and those who want to protect trans people from discrimination and harm.
The reality is much more nuanced, and like many hot-button issues, there is a whole spectrum of opinions when it comes to trans rights.
This is why this episode is a must-listen. It showcases the nuanced beliefs of people who claim to be progressive and how hard conversations need to be had within the political left community. If the anti-trans crowd succeed at planting even the tiniest seed of doubt and concern about trans existence in progressive spaces, they have already won. This episode digs in at the roots and unearths some uncomfortable truths.
It also shows that it is possible to have a thoughtful conversation that allows for beliefs to be challenged and false views corrected. Again, much of the credit goes to JVN for holding his own and staying in a difficult space. However, both Shepard and Padman should be commended for holding that space for Van Ness.
Perhaps the thing I appreciated most about the episode was everyone's ability to come back together and be able to laugh and joke. I recognize this could have been a self preservation technique for Van Ness, yet as I see from how he carries himself on Queer Eye, JVN is never one to shut anyone out. He truly embodies the idea of “calling in” rather than “calling out.”
I imagine some will say he didn’t challenge Shepard enough. While others will say he was “too much.”
What I do know is the breadth of the discussion can not be appreciated without taking in the full episode. I invite you to listen and form your own opinions.
However, as Shepard and Padman note in the intro, this episode could be triggering for some. A lot of painful experiences and harmful legislation is brought up. I won't speak for the trans community or those deeply entrenched within it (i.e. parents of trans kids). I will, however, highly recommend those who are adjacent (like me) and see themselves as supportive (like me) to listen to the episode and consider their own views and how they might be harmful.
You can listen to Jonathan Van Ness on “Armchair Expert” here or wherever you prefer to listen to podcasts. I was unable to find a shareable transcript of the episode. Please comment with a link if you have one.
(From The Armchair Expert on Instagram, from left to right: Dax Shepard, Jonathan Van Ness and Monica Padman)
*Jonathan Van Ness has shared a preference for all pronouns. For consistency, I have chosen to go with “he” throughout the article.