Unfortunately, this seems to be the historical pattern of revolutionaries: Demand free speech until you have gained enough power to control the speech of others. Once you have that power, use it ruthlessly to silence all speech of which you do not approve.
As I consider this article, I can't help suspecting that the LGBT+ movement may have been being *used* all along. Ordinary homosexual people may have simply wanted the freedom to live their own lives. But they were being used as cover by nefarious people who cared very little about the freedom of gay people to lead normal lives, but a great deal about the ability of openly flamboyant homosexuality to destroy societal norms.
The Woke Marxist effort to destroy Western civilization so they can build their utopia on its ashes appears to have played their LGBT+ allies.
You are right. The LGB community got what it wanted so they could no longer be counted on to be disrupters. Must invent a new greivance group. The utter ridiculousness of all these gender categories exposes how bold they are and how cowed the rest of us are expected to be. I refuse.
Professional activists always need the problem to continue so they can continue grifting. It's the same with the rise of BLM.
I'm a gay man and do not identify with these idiots. Live and let live, that's all I ever wanted. And that means letting people think what they want about me, or other gay people. It goes two ways.
Vernon…..OMG, what you just said was perfect. Lead your life, people, and get out of everyone else’s. No one needs to know what your makeup is. Get over it!
:) Thank you. "Live and let live" is how I always used to think. But the "T" is so crazy aggressive. I truly think the gender ideology cult has to be put down big time. Then, we set up a museum so that it never happens again. It is marketed aggressively in schools and harming so many young people. It is hard to believe that we have gotten to this place of "use your pronouns" and common place cross sex hormones. It is the progressive religion of our time. Pharma must be making $$$
""The anger of parents whose children have been introduced to the genderbread person or socially transitioned behind their backs in schools has been underestimated. Schools, a major source of affirmation, are fast becoming the next and maybe last battleground in the gender war."
Yip “it’s a problem they don’t want solved” it’s called Grifters paradise What will they plug if they don’t keep on with the same bullshit and remember they have MSM and SM plugging every story magnifying the lies eventually selling it as the truth and in the end it doesn’t matter what we the people believe or think it’s about the activist and how many people they can sell there rubbish to
I was stunned (although I realize now that I should not have been) that the activists pivoted so rapidly to "trans rights" when gay marriage was abruptly and unexpectedly decided by judicial fiat.
I think it’s more fighting for the sake of fighting. I recall Jordan Peterson discussing this issue with Bari Weiss in their summer of 2021 YouTube conversation. He was bringing up the reaction of the small group in the audience when he mentioned “bloody revolution” in his conversation with Slavic Zizec. At these words a group of the audience cheered. These are the ones who need a bloody revolution for a sake of feeling they are fighting. Their own unresolved personal issues, anger towards their mom / dad/ fill in the blank.
So it appears that progressive orthodoxy has infected the LGBTQ+++++ community, Bruce. Like everything else.
It's toxic, yes. Turns allies into enemies, yes. Make an independent like me vomit, yes. But one sure thing about orthodoxy and group think, it turns people blind as, lemming like, they run off the cliff. Blind followers do not last very long.
So by being so blind, by the light of the cause they espouse, so to speak - can't compel me to say they have an agenda to destroy anything. Not be design.
You might be giving them power they do not deserve. They're not thinking that far ahead; they're too busy protecting their gains by denying the right to opposing views. And that makes them weak. It reveals that the 'movement' (as it were) is insecure. (and, by extension, impermanent).
They're too sacrosanct and narrow minded to strategize, imo. And they need to strategize to advance an agenda. They're just not smart enough.
I KNEW there would be an immediate pivot to some issue relating to sexuality the minute that the right to gay marriage was secured. I didn't realize it was the Marxian left behind all the social agitation at the time; I just had observed that there is a large population of people who have to be perpetual activists, perpetually enraged about SOMETHING.
I guessed that the next issue would be government-recognized polyamory, but instead it was Transosaurus who came stomping out of the gate.
Normalizing pedophilia isn't "next." It's going on right now as we speak. Didn't You get the message? They aren't pedophiles. Not any more. I forget the unbelievable euphemism they came up with. They're trying to normalize the abnormal.
Some for political purposes, mainly. As others have noted. Tear down society to build it back up a lot *worse* than it is now.
There's also a movement out to destigmatize untreated mental illness, as in, "don't take your meds, you're normal as is." And, of course, at the same time there's a movement to tell people, "don't be ashamed of mainlining fentanyl."
I read an article recently about advertising on the NYC subway for the city sanctioned drug dens that use the catch phrase "Empower Yourself". By using drugs? That is what NYC is spending funds on. Not cameras and security down there but marketing to drug users.
Yeah. I think it was two TGIF's ago that M. Bowles made a comment on how some-a that kind don't want schizophrenics to take meds. She mentioned quote in NYT article that they just experienced, get this: "non-consensus realities." Somebody said she should look into it more seriously. I said otherwise.
Yeah, I heard about SEL. First was back, I dunno, probably more 'n five years ago. Anyway, a while ago. Later on it turned Woke. Had an *agenda* attached to what was originally something beneficial. And started collecting data.
It's being *sold* as something beneficial to the kids. The Woke education establishment seems to love it for other reasons. I dunno how many thousands and thousands of kids are going under the SEL spell. IMO, of course.
Let me be the first to proclaim my disdain for pedophilia. I have a yard sign that says 'We don't abide pedophilia at this house!!!'. That's right, three exclamation points.
I can't recall. I may have mentioned before that I'm lame. In a lotta respects, but especially when it comes to movies. Never even heard-a this one. What can I say?
“…..but a great deal about the ability of openly flamboyant homosexuality to destroy societal norms.”
————————————————-
I have written before about how pride parades represent the most aggressive homophobic smear in our society. It gives the average person the impression that gay people wear leather vests and carry pink dildos around.
No, most of them are just normal. Like my sister (unmarried) who drives a Mercedes and is a professor. She doesn’t strut down the street in a weird outfit.
Gay pride parades are basically the same as the gun rights people who go out wearing tactical gear and open carrying a machine gun. Jackasses.
(my sister hates this argument and will not admit I am right but I can tell she knows I’m right 😂😂)
If straight people went around dressed like people at Pride, they would get the same disgusted reaction. Most people don't want to see other people's kinks displayed in public. And when children are involved, that kind of display becomes child abuse.
They're for it if it serves the larger cause...which would be The Destruction of Heteronormativity. Our hunter-gatherer forefathers would be really disappointed.
Here's something I've pondered: Since the Gay Pride parades have been re-branded as simply "Pride" parades, and since there is so much kink on display at these events---in what way are they still "Gay?'
For instance, there has been a lot of BDSM on display at these parades. Well, plenty of straight people are into leather and BDSM and Furries etc etc etc. How is it logical then that straight people who are expressing a fundamental basis of their sexuality aren't marching openly under the banner of "Pride" in their kink?
| If straight people went around dressed like people at Pride ...
Go to Mardis Gras, spring break or any kind comic book or cosplay convention. True, the mostly (or actual) naked people stand out at these events, including pride, but most are pretty boring (lesbian chess club, gay nurses, etc.)
It wasn't gay pride a**less chaps wearing folk who made being gay accepted. It was the countless brave people who came out to their friends and families- the insurance agent, the letter carrier, the lawyer, the electrician who were our neighbors. It was they who showed hetrosexuals that gays are people we love and trust (and sometimes don't like or trust). In short "they" are "us".
For a time I lived on Jane St in Manhattan. Ground zero for the insanity you describe on Gay Pride parade day. Lunacy glorified. The topless women were mundane but the guy in the leather chaps - completely bare behind - still stands out. Seriously - leather chaps in summer?
Reminds me of the great Onion article "Gay Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance of Gays Back 50 Years".
"Allison Weber, 43, an El Segundo marketing consultant, also had her perceptions and assumptions about gays challenged by the parade.
"My understanding was that gay people are just like everybody else–decent, hard-working people who care about their communities and have loving, committed relationships," Weber said. "But, after this terrifying spectacle, I don't want them teaching my kids or living in my neighborhood.""
My gay brother turned against gay activism after a stint living in West Hollywood.
"These people are vile, and they don't just want rights, or acceptance, they insist they be ADMIRED for their depravity." (Or course, he worked in porn, so he saw the worst, I guess...)
Another commenter was recalling the difficulties some of his friends who are gay experienced rising in the corporate world. That was of course terrible but that basically does not exist now because if you tried it as a company or employer or coworker you would face a firing squad, perhaps a literal one.
Having gotten past those very legitimate problems, we can now move on to smaller stuff like explaining to everyone how having ‘pride’ in an immutable characteristic is poisonous and silly and it needs to stop generally.
The vast majority of people have difficulty rising in the corporate world. The number of positions available decrease substantially with each rung up the ladder.
Back in the day, early 1970s, I found the annual pride parade to actually be useful in helping folks like me feel stronger, and even the national marches were culturally pretty tame, though the media of course focused their cameras on those who dressed most provocatively. I quit attending, though, in the 1980s. As a New Yorker cartoon showing two men sitting on a couch, one of them talking on the phone, put it (quoting from memory), “We’re not going this year. We’re here. We’re queer. We’re use to it.”
I actually liked L.A.'s parade. C and D list celebs, plus it was short and an actual celebration. San Francisco's parade was insufferable--at least four hours of every politician and activist org you can imagine which completely takes the fun out of it. Haven't gone to New York's yet but sounds more like SF's than LA's.
I have posted this before but I think it is appropriate to post it again:
"Some call the left, liberals. I can't bring myself to do that. A true liberal embraces free speech. John Stuart Mill one of the founders of liberalism was a staunch defender of free speech. He said in his essay on liberalism, I'm paraphrasing here, 'You should listen to your adversaries because they might be right.'
The left today are not liberals. If you don't agree with the left, you are pilloried by the left. I read the definition of a racist, "Is anyone who wins an argument with a liberal."
Whatever happened to, 'I may not agree with you but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'? In July of 1977 the American NAZI Party was going to march through Skokie, Illinois. Seven Thousand Holocaust survivors lived in Skokie. Words cannot describe how disgusted and appalled I was by this proposed vile act. Of all people who defended this atrocity was the ACLU. I was shocked until I heard why they were defended the NAZIs right to march.
They weren't defending the NAZIs. They were defending the First Amendment, freedom of expression. I am a gentile and much as I despised the NAZIs I love the First Amendment more. I only wish the left loved the First Amendment as much as I do but they don't.
So please stop calling them liberals because they aren't. They are tyrants."
One of the interesting things to come out of the Allison Bailey tribunal was how a group of TRA became determined to couple the T to the LGB. One of the barristers testified that she was the person who rediscovered the trans person who had been at the Stonewall and thus she sought to show that trans people had always been a part of the gay rights movement.
There are reasons why the LGB Alliance was formed in the UK and why a number of prominent founders of Stonewall have distanced themselves from the charity.
"Were actually men.", rather. How very demeaning to women!! As we have seen it used as a sort of "genocide" against lesbians..."You don't have same sex attraction, you're a MAN, baby!!
Real fingers on a chalkboard for me. How do you define trans? Until the 1920s there was no concept of trans -- being able to change sex. There are a variety of reasons why women would hide their natal sex including a desire to participate in a profession. Mary Ann Buckley/James Barrie is perhaps the most famous example. Barrie preformed the first c section where both mother and child lived. After Barrie's death, the laying out woman discovered through the pregnancy scars that Barrie was a woman. The Royal Navy sealed the records for a 100 years. There are reports of women dressing as men to serve in the armed forces. Deborah Sampson was one, but she wasn't trans, she wanted adventure. During the Viking period, women who were warriors were considered to be men (ie they didn't do women's work nor were they buried with spindles etc) but they didn't think they could change sex. Until 2017 when the tooth enamel isotoping came in, archaeologists used to do sex id of graves when the skeletons were badly degraded by grave goods. The archaeologist who was involved in the Birka Viking woman warrior discovery has repeatedly warned against assuming that the woman in question was trans.
Exactly. Our daughters get a revisionist education. No one can change his or her sex. Ever. A person might change appearances up to a point. "Trans" is a crazy fantasy promoted as fact. Sure, there may be a handful of people with this so called "gender dysphoria" but that is a mental disorder - however it is handled. This goes beyond being respectful of the mentally disordered - or merely "non-conforming" (gosh I'd be rich if I had $1 for every girl and young woman today who is performing "non-conforming" in an identical manner). We need to take down "gender" for the crazy it is.
It will happen, partly because so-called bikini medicine is being shown through research to be a false premise. Today, another paper came out, this time about the best times for males and females to do exercise. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2022.893783/full In recent weeks, you have papers come out about the treatment of asthma and how 2/3 more females die than males and these deaths appear to be linked to menopause and puberty. One size does not fit all. They already know about male/female heart disease. There is also the binary peptides in tooth enamel which is making the sexing of badly degraded skeletons much easier. They really have just started studying this in 2016 and it is really interesting to discover if it is gender related (ie wearing high heels) or if it is biological sex as a variable. And sex is proving to be more of a variable than people thought.
Equally the long term side effects of the cross sex medication are becoming more apparent. Even though people have signed informed consent forms, they may not be enough protection. I suspect there will be malpractice suits in the future. (It gives me no great pleasure to say this)
I am for the eradication of this new fangled cult definition of "gender" as being part of your "soul" as opposed to wearing heels one day and loafers another. I don't remember even voting on it. It just took over.
I think it may take massive class action lawsuits and I look forward to that very much. You are very informed so you probably know about the Steve Levine study "Reconsidering Informed Consent for Trans-Identified Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults"
I think our government and the school systems have a great deal to answer for in the US as well as those in the medical and pharma communities and I hope they will be held to account soon.
I think the gay rights movement always had 2 factions: the normies and the revolutionaries. The normies got everything they wanted, so they packed in their activism and called it a day. By default, that meant the post-gay marriage LGBT+ movement is a movement by revolutionaries, for revolutionaries.
I'm hoping that getting called "groomers" is a wake-up call to the normies that they're being used as cover by, yes, some really nefarious people.
Great point, Celia. The LGBT+ community is being manipulated from without by progressive marxists, and James figured it out and verbalized it quicker than most of us. It's the same playbook they have been using to manipulate the African American community and the Latino community. What all these groups have in common is an increasing unease about how they are being represented, and the growing knowledge that the far left, at the end of the day, could care less about any of them.
The Latino community seems to be catching onto that faster than the black community. Some of these big cities have had an unbroken history of Democratic leadership for 50+ years, but the lives of black people in those cities have not improved.
I see more and more black conservatives, but they get attacked relentlessly by the Left, often in horribly racist ways. So much for the idea that Democratic are the non-racist party!
I agree on all counts. We'll see if this generation of conservative African-Americans gets some real traction on improving things. Progressives won't give up this core constituency quietly - they control too much power and they like it that way.
Frank Herbert put it best: "When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles." Modern progressivism in a nutshell: preach tolerance until you gain power, then crush all dissent. I'll let you guess which stage we're in.
My only complain with this article is the continued distinction between "good pro-gay-rights liberalism" and "bad woke progressivism". Like David Brooks yesterday and Nellie frequently, this author is unwilling to see the connection between liberalism ("race, class, and sex constraints are oppressive and must be overturned") and progressive wokeness ("wrong beliefs about race, class, and sex constraints are oppressive and must be silenced").
Liberalism claims that "individual freedom" is the highest social good. If that is true, then "free speech" is not the highest good. So anyone arguing against maximal individual freedom is not entitled to "free speech", because they are seeking to use that right to overturn a greater right. This isn't hard, and yet so many liberals miss this obvious philosophical connection.
Free speech is a component of individual freedom; individuals should be free to speak their mind. So no, there's no contradiction there.
There are a few philosophical differences between liberalism and progressivism; when it comes to free speech, progressives believe that self-defined "marginalized groups" should have a "right to not encounter offensive speech", which naturally supercedes any right to free speech.
I see the group identity stuff as a separate problem. In the big picture, liberalism is premised on "liberating" people from unchosen obligations, a gradual reduction in constraints on the basis of class, race, religion, sex, effort, personal behavior, and now even biology itself. 3 centuries of liberalism in 1 sentence: if an institution, custom or law involuntarily constrains my choices, it must fall. I didn't phrase it well in my original comment. If unchosen constraints are evil, anyone who advocates for such constraints must also be evil. Evil should not be negotiated with; it should be crushed. Hence, wokeness.
The key is whether "individual autonomy" as the HIGHEST social good. Plato, Augustine, Aquinas would all argue it is not. Hobbes and Locke would both argue (from opposite directions) that it is. I believe we are living through the logical outcome of Lockean philosophy. Having run down the shared cultural capital of those first 3 men, we are left only with individual autonomy on which to ground our society. Such a society can have no shared standards, virtues, or norms, since all such rules must give way to the individual's desire for personal liberty. Lockean philosophy is an anti-culture. The anti-dote is to abandon it. As C.S. Lewis says, "when you're on the wrong road, the most progressive man is the one who turns around first."
What you're describing isn't liberalism so much as anarchism.
Liberalism would say that constraints on individual choice need to be justified on a case-by-case basis. Outlawing murder, for instance, constrains my choice to go around killing people, but liberalism doesn't argue for the end of criminalizing homicide.
To the extent that liberalism opposes institutional/customary/legal constraints on individual choice, it's generally because those constraints are either unnecessary or else they create more problems than they solve.
Since you mentioned Augustine and Aquinas, they both took the view that heresy against the (Catholic) church should be a punishable offense, and that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). That's a great example of a......shall we say.....questionable constraint on individual autonomy, that liberalism would say should be torn down.
Obviously Mill's "my rights end at your nose" argument holds for liberalism (eg: your murder example). But notice that by dissolving norms and customs, liberalism ends up requiring a large state to police the inevitable conflicts between rights and noses (eg: Jack Phillips bakery.)
"it's generally because those constraints are either unnecessary or else they create more problems than they solve"
I do not think history bears out this statement. Liberalism wants to see itself this way, but I cannot think of a case where it has sided with any social norm or institution over individual autonomy. Can you?
"Augustine and Aquinas took the view that heresy should be a punishable offense"
Yes they did. They believed in a strong God who had standards. It is precisely that "strong God" view that Enlightenment liberals were rebelling against. Coming off of 200 years of European religious wars sparked by the Protestant Reformation, they intentionally created a system which would be immune to those conflicts by having no codified confessional or religio/moral standards. Except one: my rights end at your nose. The only blasphemy in liberalism is to criticize maximal individual autonomy.
But individual autonomy is a weak God, precisely because it has no standards for human behavior. In the course of the next 250 years, we gradually ran down the cultural capital of the previous 17 centuries.
Thus today we cannot condemn:
drag queen story hour (a blessing of liberty according to David French)
enormous wealth disparities (they earned it)
endemic pornography (it's in the privacy of his own home)
crazy homeless people (they have a right to live that way)
drug abuse (who am I to judge what they put into their body)
abortion (Mom's bodily autonomy)
All of these have answers in the Greco-Judeo-Christian history called Western Civilization. Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas could respond to any of them in clear moral terms. We can not, because our liberal philosophy lacks any moral tools beyond "individual rights".
"liberalism ends up requiring a large state to police the inevitable conflicts between rights and noses" - still beats the alternative of people dueling in the streets.
"I cannot think of a case where liberalism has sided with any social norm or institution over individual autonomy." I can - bestiality and disturbing graves just as 2 examples.
"The only blasphemy in liberalism is to criticize maximal individual autonomy." - if that were true, then Mill's "my rights end at your nose" would have been blasphemy, so you're still arguing strawmen.
"Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas could respond to any of them in clear moral terms." - not really, because their answers would have been predominantly sectarian. "The Pope says it's bad" is not particularly convincing to a Buddhist.
Liberalism, as embraced by our Founders, was based on the premise that personal liberty was limited *to the person.* Behavior that took away another person's liberty--specifically in the form of their life and property--MUST be forbidden (that is, limited).
Please read the statement above in quotes - so many liberals - not all. I can't call them liberals. I call them leftists. liberals believe in free speech.
I wonder what the repercussions will be when normalcy returns? Will we see a new litigation industry emerge: "wrongful gender transition damages"? Will the pendulum swing too far back? and many other questions...
Celia M: James Kirchick embraces speech from both sides. He points out “…the lack of respect for viewpoint diversity and the pressure to conform….” He refers to; the BBC’s news chief comment: “You’ll hear things you don’t personally like and see things you don’t like….” He mentions the Yale law professor Kate Stith getting the middle finger from students who were trying to prevent the exercise of free speech. You gave me the middle finger when you said this: “George, “Just me” is a well-known troll on this forum. Most of us respond to him with the silence he deserves.” You were practicing in the call-out culture, you know, cancel culture. You claim to believe in free speech, and you object to cancel culture, but you don’t act that way!
Miles, when people think their sensibilities have been offended, they reject, shame, and ostracize.
“Cancel culture is generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming.”
“the phenomenon or practice of publicly rejecting, boycotting, or ending support for particular people or groups because of their socially or morally unacceptable views or actions”
“a way of behaving in a society or group, especially on social media, in which it is common to completely reject and stop supporting someone because they have said or done something that offends you”
“Cancel culture or call-out culture is a contemporary phrase used to refer to a form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles.”
I guess it depends on whether or not you think "don't feed the troll" is a form of ostracism.
There was another guy, Marek, who got banned from the Common Sense comment section for being ridiculously homophobic. I suppose you could say he got canceled, but he got a LOT of mulligans first before it came to that.
Marek's gone? Gee, I hope it was something I said . . .
"Cancel culture," to me, means being unfairly exiled from platforms, jobs, and society for stating views that are reasonable to everyone except Woke activists whose eyes spin with glee they can put another head on their digital pikes. Trolls who pour hate and bitterness onto a forum are fairly removed to protect the sanctity of the forum, and only after a lot of fair warning. But they are not evicted from their livelihoods, lives, or other platforms.
miles, the definition of a troll: is someone who posts insincere, digressive, extraneous or off-topic comments in an online community. When I make comments, they are valid; the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency. And ostracism is: “the action of intentionally not including someone in a social group or activity.” By definition, I’m not a troll, I make valid comments, and for that reason, there are some who want to ostracize me for it.
I'm certainly not the only one who questions the sincerity of your posts, not to mention the cogency.
You predominantly just post trite woke talking points; I personally would call you a NPC before I'd call you a troll per se.
Calling posting on a comment section board a "social activity" is also a stretch; it's not like we're all in a room and everyone is physically turning their backs to you. I generally ignore your posts because, well, if you've talked to one woke NPC you've pretty much talked to all of them.
To use a campus example, ignoring someone is not attending their guest lecture. Cancel culture is trying to stop their guest lecture from even happening in the first place, so that NOBODY can attend it. You're being ignored, not canceled.
Ah well... I had-ta check in before reading (book).
Lemme abuse You with the *facts* of the matter, Just me. And the *facts* of the matter is that Celia was just explaining the *facts* of the matter to George. You *are* a troll. You come in here all innocent-like. Young kid just trying to learn.
Yeah. Riiiiiiight.
People point out how what You write here is *factually* incorrect, and Your typical response is immediately slinging personal insults. I'm just ashamed it took me so long to find out that all You are (when You display Yourself here anyway) is a troll, trying to make people made.
Yeah, I know it's great fun for You. I won't go into the psychology of that, at this time.
YOu start acting like an adult, instead-a going into the Woke's "boo hoo I'm a victim here" mode, and quit insulting people, and mebbe You'll get somebody to pay some serious attention to You.
Until then, You just keep sneaking up on the unsuspecting who don't know You as well as I do.
I like Celia and agree with her on most of what she says. I wish there were more leftists on this BBS. We need diverse points of view. Having said that every time over the years that I have tried to engage a leftist in civil, logical debate the leftist doesn't refute me. They change the subject and then curse me.
I really wish we could have calm, intelligent debate but in my experience it has never happened. I try to buttress my posts based on logic and history. I try to make my posts irrefutable and I know that is what infuriates the left because, I believe they cannot use the same tactics I use to strengthen their arguments because I believe their philosophies are based on lies.
I will give you an example. Based on history, Islam is not the religion of peace and all you have to do to prove this is read a condensed history of Islam. I have yet to find a leftist fanatic who has ever read a history book. If one of their leftist icons tells them Islam is the religion of peace, they don't research the lie. They believe it on face value which is false. They never question. Like little lemmings they are off to spread this dangerous lie.
I can give you numerous examples. The Democrat Party is not the feminist party. It is not the minorities party. It is not the party of civil liberties and I can prove all these things..
The irony is that people think it goes against enlightenment principles, when in actuality it goes against the oldest known civilizational principles - Judeo-Christian, Greek Polis, Hammurabic Code.. what have you. Don't Lie, Don't Kill, Don't Envy, Don't Steal...
I'm sure they have been being used. The party has slowly been taken over by the radicals, but now they are consolidating their control. Ironically, the only people keeping them from complete control are the geriatric Dems.
While there has always been a component of greed and envy in human societies, that tendency has been largely discouraged by conservative social forces, whether religious or cultural. But Marxism gave the envious a rallying point, and the "death of God" has removed the social bulwarks that kept organized envy from being acceptable.
If you met a woman who looked like she weighed 80 lbs but she insisted she was fat and needed to keep dieting, would you agree with her that she is fat and by all means keep starving herself? She has a body dysphoria, a mental problem, and needs help because she is hurting herself.
I see trans people the same way. But we don’t urge them to get help because we have been bullied into “affirming” them or risk being called transphobic. But they are hurting themselves, with the help of the medical community. Hormones, mutilating surgery, and therapists who agree with little children who think they are the opposite sex. Will we someday look on this the same way we look at lobotomies and shock therapy?
Homosexuality has existed for centuries, just look at ancient Greek art. But the explosion in people identifying as trans is fake. It’s a cry for something else— a need to be special, noticed, taken seriously, even solidarity with friends. It’s an attempt to fix something in a person’s life, but it’s not the solution. We used to roll our eyes at kids who went “Goth”. All that was reversible. Trans isn’t. I think the movement needs serious discrediting.
Surgically mutilating the bodies of confused adolescents, injecting drugs into children to shut down normal endocrine function, injecting cross sex hormones into children resulting in permanent sterilization along with a long list of other dangerous life long side effects.... it’s just beyond terrifying to think about. I absolutely believe that this entire scenario will soon be universally viewed as one of the largest medical malpractice scandals in modern times.
A 13 year old "trans girl" can consent to a 50 year old doctor cutting his balls off, but a 17-year old freshman "cis girl" can't consent to intercourse with her senior boyfriend in college. This is where we are.
Ann, I'm beginning to believe it is the necessary first step to normalizing body "snatching," in the sense that it will ease public reticence about the body mutilation required for the transhumanists. If we can make it seem acceptable to experiment with these things, no one will push back when it's chips or dna or some other wonderful thing god-man wants to use to create immortal superhumans.
I’m afraid you are correct. It’s only part of why I’m feeling so terrified. Today I had an experience that has really got me shaking in my boots. My daughter is getting ready to turn 12. I received a reminder from the pediatrician’s office to schedule a well child visit. Included in the email was a linked questionnaire that my daughter is supposed to complete before coming to the appointment in which she is asked to specify her preferred pronoun. I was also notified, in this form letter, that once my daughter turns 12, her mother and father will no longer be able to have access to her medical records in order to protect her privacy. When I called the office to inquire about all this I was told that her privacy needed to be protected in case she desires access to “reproductive health care and abortion services “. Oh, now isn’t this just fantastic, I’m now supposed to let my completely normal healthy very NOT confused young daughter go into an exam room with a doctor with an agenda? . And my research tells me that all this crazy talk is endorsed by the American Pediatric Association. Her devout Catholic parents are supposed just supposed to go along with all this? Hell is going to freeze over before my husband and I let this happen.
You have to give parental permission for the school nurse to give your daughter an aspirin but you can't stop her from getting an abortion? This is through "The Looking Glass", upside down.
Yes, and they specifically keep parents in the dark when names and pronouns are changed at school - a significant psychological intervention. And, the kid can leave campus to get cross sex hormones at Planned Parenthood without parental consent. Abortions are actually down but the hormones are a growing revenue stream for PP. Twelve is very young to not have your mother know everything.
Teenagers are not known for making great decisions. Until they are 18, parents should have the say on what medical procedures or medicines their "CHILDREN" should have, not some leftist nutcase. They are called "CHILDREN" for a reason.
At first, I thought that the craziness was just a result of an overloaded, non-responsive bureaucratic system. After 2 decades in the military, I'm very, very, tiresomely familiar with that very thing. And, for many years, that is exactly what it was.
Now, it's on purpose, and it's designed to bring about a real change, both physiological and societal. There is a real "method to the madness," and these evil people believe they have the right to make these decisions.
I'm with you, also shaking in my boots. I have 2 daughters of my own, 15 and 13, and this is just not ever going to happen, not ever.
Somewhere in the back of my mind, I have this vision that their plan is going to go seriously wrong, the results are going to be catastrophic, and those of us that resisted are going to be the only ones left capable of living a full life. It's sad, they will hate us, no doubt, but they will need all sorts of continual medical interventions just to survive, and we will live apart. It's a sad, unhappy vision, but I fear it might be true.
You should be very concerned. There will be "gender" talk behind your back at the doctor's office and at school. The kids minds are won over to the thinking long before it gets to hormones, etc.
They were better physicians when all they had was bleeding and leeches. All the professional organizations have gone bat spit crazy. Doctors and lawyers more than most.
ONe-a the trans women out there is Martin Rothblatt. He's multi-millionaire who started Sirius XM. Now has billion-dollar company making artificial organs from pigs. NO way he'll eventually try to develop an artificial womb, right?
*He* wrote a book called "From Transgender to Transhuman: A Manifesto On the Freedom Of Form." I have it, but haven't gotten to it. No doubt, pure drivel.
He also started his own religion called Terasem, I think. He isn't a nut-case, tho. (cough) He may be autistic, with off-the-scale intelligence and all. Strange that autistic people are prone towards being transgender. Have no idea how that could be.
Yes! And it’s relatedly perverse, it seems to me, that the other women’s rights issue at the moment is abortion. I’m pro abortion as a matter of public policy, but it bothers me that the big women’s issues focus on erasure and death.
Bingo. You nailed another one. I believe that Dr. Malone would call the "trans" cult a mass transformation psychosis. Starting with Salem, to the spiritualists to revivals to the day care sex abuse carnivals, madness periodically sweeps across our land.
Again check out the Girardian lecture explaining “mimetic desire” and how it’s shaping and transforming our world—rapidly and for the worse. It’s as fundamental a concept as natural selection: https://youtu.be/5Qu6vBebwwg
I agree. Interestingly Dr. Diane Ehrensaft who wrote a paper during the Presideo Precshool satanic abuse time is again a big player in the promotion of gender surgeries for young people. This mass psychosis has the backing of our federal government and the schools. It is so widespread and the numbers who suffer will be very large before it's over. I don't think there has ever been anything so huge that has been so suppressed by media. Time Magazine did publish an article of the subject but came out in favor of harming children.
I know someone who decided at the age of about 50 that he, married with children, was really a woman. So the taxpayers had to pay for his transition because he was a government worker. I don’t know if he’s had the chopadickfromme or not. He’s 6’5” and now has gained quite a bit of weight. (Maybe that’s his female side as we women all seem to gain weight as we get older). He never looks happy. His family doesn’t speak to him as he completely blindsided and humiliated his former wife. Heck the whole thing ended up in the weekly paper.
I cannot bring myself to call him a her because I knew him when he was Tom.
On a recent podcast with TT Exulansic, a YouTuber who has detransitioned, one of the medications that trans patients take (she named it, but I don’t recall it) makes you gain weight, citing I Am Jazz as a possible example of this.
Unwoke...x Gov of NJ did that, years back (name?). i don't find fault with their decision, maybe sorry. i had neighbors, for years, i didn't even notice, fine with me.
Give Tom a big Hello, should open things up, maybe.
With your username, I can't tell if you're trolling or not. Anyways, that's not what Jim McGreevey did at all. He gave a "homeland security job" to his unqualified secret boyfriend, and then came out as gay as a means to obfuscate the scandal. No one cared that he was gay. We did care that we used his position to create fake jobs for his boy toys.
I am sure it can be hard on some people’s psyche when they truly buy into the intersectional worldview. Think of the “trans racial” hoaxers (Rachel Dolezal, Jessica Krug) who both seemed to hang around activist circles and both learned the hard way that one cannot be “trans racial”. The same does not apply to gender, so well…I am sure some people have put two and two together. If, according to the ideology, both race and gender are social constructs, why aren’t both constructs equally flexible?
I am what you would call a Dissociative Identity Disorder skeptic. Those who claim to be suffering from this condition can switch genders according to their alternative personalities. However—as of recently—it is considered taboo for the alters to identify as being of a race that does not align the skin color of the “host”…I find it all very very interesting.
I’ve always found that double standard fascinating. Why is that anyone who goes out in blackface or in the case of some local elementary schools, a Moana costume at Halloween, considered cultural appropriation yet the same behavior in regards to sex and gender has its very own *special* protected status??? We celebrate biological males swimming with women but Rachel Dolezal was a biological Caucasian who was ostracized for her success at leading the local chapter of the NAACP.
Exactly. Which is why I tell people it is not loving and kind to acquiesce to someone's pronouns du jour in the name of kindness. There is nothing whatsoever kind and loving about contributing to one's psychosis. By saying "you just be you, and I'll call you Jane instead of John, even though you have a penis and testicles and a full-on beard, because I don't want to hurt your feelings" is not loving. Ever. It is destructive to the other. I pray that the "someday" comes soon before more "irreversible damage" is done.
This is why I’ve recently taken to referring to trans people—especially those who merely identify as the opposite sex—as he/she and/or she/he when using pronouns. Mostly I avoid them.
The last recorded lobotomy in the United States was performed by Dr. Walter Freeman in 1967 and ended in the death of the person on whom it was performed. However, Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) aka "shock therapy" is a safe, effective and FDA-approved medical treatment for a variety of mental health issues, particularly severe and persistent disorders that have not improved with medications. ECT has been shown to improve symptoms in about 80% of participating patients.
NCMaureen, do you know the requirements for a child to receive puberty blockers and the age of medical consent in the United States, and generally how old the person needs to be before receiving genital gender-affirming surgeries?
I have read the following, from multiple different sources, over the past few months: girls as young as 14 are able to receive testosterone injections at planned parenthood after a single consultation interview with a “counselor”. Parental consent is not a requirement in this process. Not sure what qualifies one to be one of these “counselors “. As far as surgical intervention goes, it seems to be up to the discretion of individual surgeons. About a week ago I read about a surgeon in San Francisco, near my home, who advertises that he will do “top surgery” on patients as young as 13. So, I think the age of supposed consent just keeps going down! It’s hard to believe it could be true, but I’m afraid it just is.
One of my sources is the article in City Journal on May 17 by Chris Rufo. The title of the article is “Banging beyond Binaries” . Make sure you are sitting down before you read that one. It’s very disturbing. That is where I first learned about the surgeon in San Francisco that I mentioned. In re reading the article today I realize that he is quoted as stating that he would be willing to consider doing surgery on patients as young as 10 years old. Let me now work on digging up my source on the testosterone injections at planned parenthood. I think I can find it for you.
You can read about the testosterone prescriptions at planned parenthood in the article titled “Planned Parenthood jumps into the Hormone Therapy Game “ by Alexandria Desanctis on 8/26/21 by The Ethics &Public Policy Center. The same article was posted by The National Review on 8/24/21.
The Gender Confirmation Center and Dr. Scott Mosser have some of the strictest criteria in the USA for operating on people below the age of 18. If the criteria are met, then the surgeons of the GCC will perform some forms of gender surgery on adolescents, and only with full consent of all legal guardians.
In general, Planned Parenthood can’t do hormone therapy on children younger than 18. the age of consent, without parental consent.
All he'd hafta to do to become a genius is look at an issue and decide what he thinks is the truth of the matter. And dthen realize that the *exact opposite* is the truth. And then research that.
He never does that, and goes outta his way to ignore the facts of the matter. Common foible, which s/he or it has perfected.
And that's the very book of which the mistakenly lauded Chase Strangio said, 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐴𝐶𝐿𝑈 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑠, that "Preventing this book from being published or ever read is a hill I will die on."
Shocking that anyone from the ACLU would say that of ANYTHING.
Shocking that a non-trans person would take such a wildly extreme position from nothing more than activist solidarity.
Shocking that anyone would ever think such a vile position makes him worthy of even the small "honor" of being a Parade Marshall or whatever lame "honor" they've bestowed upon him.
Definitely time for some action, starting with the easy, passive "Don't care." answer when accused of being transphobic.
NCMaureen, and who am I to believe: Shrier's book or Jack Turban MD MHS, published in psychology today?
“Shrier's book tells the stories of several young people who came out as transgender to their parents. The book claims that these adolescents and young adults were not actually transgender, but actually just confused. The problem is Shrier didn't actually interview any of these people she wrote about.”
“The author’s note points out that she only interviewed their parents, who uniformly did not accept their children’s transgender identities. Many of them were estranged from their kids because the children were so hurt by their parents' rejection. To actually understand the psychology of these young people, one would need to talk to them, not simply rely on stories from parents with whom they do not speak.”
“To make things worse, the author's note explains that Shrier changed details in the book to ensure the transgender people she wrote about would not be able to recognize themselves. In doing so, she ensured they could not provide their side of the story or point out any inaccuracies in her reporting.”
Alejandra, Shrier's book is based on the rapid onset gender dysphoria hypothesis (ROGD); below, you will find why the study was invalid. A more recent study shows that (ROGD) does not exist.
“that Lisa Littman surveyed for her study on the (scientifically unsubstantiated) concept of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD). I was also rather stunned to learn that virtually all of this – the founding of two of those three websites, the first ever claims that social contagion causes kids to become transgender, the coining of "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria," and Littman's recruiting parents for her survey – happened within an extremely short period of time (roughly half a year).”
“In other words, this supposed study of ROGD is entirely based on the opinions of parents who frequent the very same three blogs that invented and vociferously promote the concept of ROGD. Frankly, this is the most blatant example of begging the question that I have ever seen in a research paper.”
“We did not find support within a clinical population for a new etiologic phenomenon of rapid onset gender dysphoria during adolescence. Among adolescents under age 16 years seen in specialized gender clinics, associations between more recent gender knowledge and factors hypothesized to be involved in rapid onset gender dysphoria were either not statistically significant, or were in the opposite direction to what would be hypothesized. This putative phenomenon was posited based on survey data from a convenience sample of parents recruited from websites,”
10
“and may represent the perceptions or experiences of those parents, rather than of adolescents, particularly those who may enter into clinical care. Similar analyses should be replicated using additional clinical and community data” sources. Our finding of lower anxiety severity/impairment scores in adolescents with more recent gender knowledge suggests the potential for longstanding experiences of gender dysphoria (or their social complications) playing a role in development of anxiety, which could also be explored in future research.
Let’s start with this: Littman’s study—while indeed preliminary, based on parental surveys, and relying on a small sample— at is far from unique. The only unique aspect about the study is that trans activists tried to prevent it from being published and engaged in a campaign of intimidation against Littman. By doing so and interfering with academic freedom, trans activists are taking a deeply unscientific stance and sending a clear message to those scientists who are thinking about pursuing certain topics (Littman, btw, is not the only scientist who has endured such intimidation by trans activist). Yet, it remains that many of the questions related to the best treatment for gender dysphoria have not achieved anything resembling scientific consensus. Certainly, there is no real good explanation for the recent explosion of individuals identifying as trans and questions surrounding detransitioners are well worth investigating. For such matters to be explored scientifically, different sides of the of the debate need to be pursued objectively—without the involvement of activists. Objective science = good science, and—of course—those who identify as trans have the most at stake.
The best evidence to back up the need for more objective science surrounding these topics? WPATH whistle blowers Erica Anderson and Marci Bowers (who raise concerns about the reversible nature of interventions, about the association having become a scientific echo chamber and about recklessness on behalf of medical professionals) as well as changing attitudes in countries that were once at the vanguard of embracing these interventions (e.g., Sweden, Finland).
At the very least, Jack Turner, MD (Shrier and Littman’s most vocal critic) cannot be seen as an impartial voice on these matters.
You're shown to be an idiot again, because You *are* an idiot. No doubt the flat-earthers can find scientific evidence in favor of their view. You can find evidence of any insane view, like Yours tend to be.
And what do You do. Come back and post the same crap. Along with Your insinuating insults.
The reason You're so batpoop *stupid* is that You never learn. And You'll never grow up for the same reason.
Shame. "A mind is a terrible thing to waste." ~ old commercial
NCMaureen, in a majority of states, the age of consent is 18, which means the ‘…shocking details on gender distorting surgeries….” It is being done with the permission of parents. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to get in between a parent and their child unless there is an overwhelming reason to do so!
Yeah, in *some* cases it's done with the parent's permission. In some cases, it's *encouraged* by the parents.
But in a lotta other cases, the parents are completely caught off-guard. Mebbe You never "heard" the facts of the matter. In schools, it's often policy to tell kids going the trans way not to even *tell* their parents. You've heard that, right?
And it a lotta other cases, the parents are *coerced* into giving permission. Because of the pseudoscience that says if they don't, they're leading their kids to commit suicide. Told that, what parent *couldn't* go along with it.
And in other cases still, no. The parents do *not* give their permission, but accept the inevitable. And then, in some percentage of cases, the parents actively discourage their children from this insanity.
This is another case in point. You are so uninformed that Your opinions are basically worthless. And the reason is typical.
How can You make any claim to be intelligent, when You only look at one side of an issue. The reason You posted Your whatever-You-wanna-call-it is because it *sounds* logical, but omits the pertinent facts. Either that's intentional, which is pretty despicable, or You're just ignorant as the day is long. Take Your pick, Just me. I suspect the latter.
Very interesting piece, and not something I would have read elsewhere. I subscribe to Common Sense for this very reason.
One element that caught my attention was the phrase, "I identify as ...," used by people quoted by the author. It seems to me that this concept makes every "identity" essentially meaningless, just a role that goes on with no reality involved.
I identify as Queer right now, because I'm wearing my son's t-shirt, but later, when I put on a dress and go to Weight Watchers, I'll identify as a rather overweight old lady. It's all loo-loo.
"the university's LGBTQUIA+ association" Okay, when did the "U" come into things?!? What the "heck" is *that* for?
And they say 'Trans rights are simply not up for debate, they are non-negotiable.' What that means, as You probably know, is that WOMEN's rights go right out the window. Who negotiated that?
"Prior to the protest, the society also said that it does not condone any violent behaviour.
'Any acts of violence at this event are discouraged and not to be affiliated with us,' it said."
So who *should* it be affiliated with? Convenient nobody is responsible for the hatred displayed against Nadhim Zahawi. And from them that are against hatred, no less.
U apparently means *undefined* They are constantly adding new terms. Hard to keep up.
No one has negotiated this. Some of the trans demands are contrary to the UK Equality Act. Protected characteristics must be balanced, according to the most recent ECHR statement on the subject and single sex spaces are allowed under British law due to privacy, safety and dignity concerns.
Zahawi and the Department of Education are currently involved in drawing up guidelines for schools on how schools can handle children with gender dysmorphia in conjunction with the parents/guardians of the child in question.
The Mail has done an update, but this passage about the Warwick Pride people needs to be read several times. As I said -- it is hard to keep track of the different genders. What is *neptunic*, *genderfae*?
*Less is known about Warwick Pride's president, who goes by the first name Mia. A mathematics and physics undergraduate, Mia identifies as 'transgender, non-binary, genderfae, asexual, demiromantic' and 'neptunic'. Their interests include 'music, electronics, programming, arcana, community management and moderation' – and 'Lego'.
The communications officer Aurore is studying English Literature & History and identifies as 'woman, lesbian'. She says that she wants to promote Warwick Pride's events 'and help reaching out many queer students at Warwick to make their experience more safe and enjoyable'.
And the Treasurer and Trans & Aro/Ace Community Officer have used avatars in place of a photo of themselves on Warwick Pride's website. Treasurer Sylvia is studying MORSE and identifies as 'woman, transgender, predominantly heterosexual'. The Trans & Aro/Ace Community Officer goes by the name 'Uke/Jupiter', is studying Physics with Astrophysics and has listed 'dinosaurs' as a general interest.*
The Warwick Pride tweets accuse Zahawi of institutional transphobia as he has made it clear that parents/guardians must be informed if children appear to be experiencing gender dysphoria.
TY. And I thought I'd seen it all with "undefined." I guess I should be glad they don't add letters for all these to the TQUIA+ and all that. But now I wonder if these were included in the 70 i heard about, or as these new editions.
Pretty soon Merriam-Webster will come out with a trans dictionary, and we'll all-a us be saved.
Sometimes I think I have led a very sheltered life...I know students are going to student but...And this sort of explains why Yvette Cooper who used very pro-Women's Rights doesn't want to go down rabbit holes.
My guess is that the "U" is for "Undecided". You, know, for people who want all of the other letters to be available to them as required for more convenient offense-taking and public accusations.
Several years ago I introduced over dinner two of my oldest friends—both powerful, wealthy gay men. One had reached the top of one of the world’s largest financial institutions, the other ran a huge, extremely influential corporation. They reminisced about how rapidly the barriers they faced at the beginning of their careers had fallen. One of my friends famously came out at a time when he could have lost his job, become a pariah, and possibly even been imprisoned. The other friend never publicly came out but made no secret of his decades old relationship with a man. Both have daughters, natural or adopted, both are officially married to their husbands, both are covered in worldly honours and approval. What started out as a threatening secret disability in the 80s became an object of praise and career advancement.
They both talked about how startling, unexpected and almost disorienting this change of fortunes was for them. They were grateful—but also bewildered.
They may not know Rich Tafel but they probably do, and I don’t know if they like him but they are similar to him. But our world belongs to Urvashi Vaid and her radical shock troops. My friends might as well be Trump Republicans (which they are far from being) as far as the extreme Trans activists and their supporters are concerned.
We have gotten to the stage where the revolution is eating its own. Ironically, the whole gay “coming out” narrative is based upon a notion of essence and authenticity which is rejected by the Trans movement, which is about endless evolution, imagination and the will to become. My friends took courage from their determination to be “who they really were”—they are now on the cusp of becoming enemies of those who insist that we are whatever we identify as.
Similarly, the women’s movement has been severed from its connection to an embodied ontology and finds itself conceptually helpless on one hand to oppose male swimmers declaring themselves women and taking all the swimming prizes, and on the other hand paralyzed and unable to mount an effective campaign to oppose the reversal of Roe versus Wade because it is no longer possible to march under the banner of “Women’s Rights” in any meaningful way.
Our society is in the grip of out-of-control mimetic contagion, a very dangerous stage. The grave consequences were described by the late philosopher René Girard and are discussed with admirable clarity in a lecture posted this week by David Perell and Jonathan Bi. For those interested in only dipping their toe into the water until convinced of the relevance of Girard’s thought, listen to the last 20 minutes of this lecture about the new meaning of truth, love, innovation and violence.
“Ironically, the whole gay “coming out” narrative is based upon a notion of essence and authenticity which is rejected by the Trans movement, which is about endless evolution, imagination and the will to become. My friends took courage from their determination to be “who they really were”—they are now on the cusp of becoming enemies of those who insist that we are whatever we identify as.”
This quote perfectly shows the difference between the Trans movement and the LGB community. The Trans community doesn’t care what the LGB community thinks and care even less about women’s rights; they are pushing their own agenda while using them as a shield. I truly believe that if one were to peel the onion of the Trans scorched earth policies/activities, you’ll find that a relatively small group of progressive Marxist thugs are pushing it. It appears that Urvashi Vaid and her ilk have seized the narrative and like every thing the Progressives touch, will burn anything down that gets in their way.
Most normal Americans never had a problem with gay rights. We simply accepted that gays had existed since time immemorial and that God intended as much. The notion that gayness was "sinful" was laughable. People simply are. Gay "marriage" and adoption rights took a bit longer but that was simply a process, aided by discussion.
I still struggle with gays “creating” babies and purposely denying that child a mother or father. We should strive for what’s in the best interest of children and I don’t think depriving a child of one or the other is in their best interest. People aren’t commodities.
Ironically, Leftists think adoption is evil--the commodifying of children. (Based on what I learned in a Woke class on this subject, that position is held chiefly to justify abortion.) But they don't say a word against homosexual couples adopting. I guess it's only "commodification" if the adoptive parents are married white heterosexuals.
I don't struggle with this one at all. I'd much rather children be raised in a happy gay home than in an angry and miserable straight one. The sex of the parents is irrelevant to the child's "best interest." The attitude, love, and guidance from those parents is what matters.
Once you say "the sex of the parents is irrelevant", you have accepted the fundamental premise of trans activism: the interchangeability of male and female.
I agree that 2 parents are better than one, but let's not take the most optimistic homosexual family setting (wealthy, progressive, committed 10 years men) and compare it with the most depressing (single poor woman struggling to pay the bills.)
Given other constant variables, Mom & Dad are always better than Dad & Dad or Mom & Mom. And again, given constant other variables, biological parenthood is superior to adoptive. (I have 3 adopted kids myself, so I can say that.)
You're doing the same thing, though, Brian--presenting the most optimistic heterosexual family (straight, white, married, loving, law-abiding, committed, and financially secure) as the norm. In too many cases, it isn't. Good gay or trans parents are far better for children than rotten or evil straights.
No, the sexes are not interchangeable in family life, and I'm not a trans activist. In a perfect world, the traditional biological mom and dad model is better than any other. Having both genders in the house provides two different role models, masculine and feminine, which covers the waterfront for kids.
But when "ideal" parents are anything but--abusive, cruel, criminal, drug-addicted--I'd much rather kids be raised by adoptive parents, same-sex, trans, or anybody else. In those scenarios, the parents' sex is irrelevant--what counts far more is their behavior and ability to raise those children in a safe and loving home.
I didn't mean to make you think I was accusing you of being an activist. Not my intention at all. Sorry.
I have been involved in the foster / adoptive world for decades, so I guess my perspective is colored by that. Having seen dozens of social workers remove kids from biological homes only to place them in even more dangerous foster environments, I am suspicious of the phrases "in the best interest of the child" and "ideal parents". There are no "ideal" parents; there are only flawed and sinful people struggling to figure out how to manage this tiny, irrational creature they chose to bring into their lives but which lacks an off button or an instruction manual. And short of a child's imminent bodily injury or death, I am VERY heavily biased toward the man and woman who crated that child.
Since the original commenter was talking about "creating" babies though, I'll step out on that as well and say that I believe commercial surrogacy is nothing but legalized baby buying and should be illegal. Women's eggs may be donated in love and carried in wombs in love, but buying eggs and renting wombs is wrong. And it matters not whether the prospective parent(s) is/are single/married or gay/straight/confused.
I think JT's comment is correct. Real longitudinal studies on the two environments would be useful, but are essentially impossible. Any such study would more likely reveal the experimenter's biases than the actual outcomes.
I agree, except for there's no research to say that the sex of the parents is irrelevant.
Granted, people still don't recognize the research that, for the children, a two-parent home generally gives a better outcome, in most all respects, than a single-parent home. The two being mother and father.
Will there be non-biased research on gay parents? You probably know as well as I do, Sir William.
I dunno. *Nobody* knows what the effects will be long-term. Never came up in the discussion. I just worry, because 200,000 years is a lotta history to throw away. But mebbe it was time for a change. Dunno.
Most are? Is it a case of how a lotta adopted kids feel, or something deeper, I wonder? But, your probably right. It's probably a whole *lot* to do with what the parents want more than anything.
I think it’s not knowing where you came from. Adopted kids are not all donor conceived and many know their genetic history. My dad abandoned me when I was 7 but I know my history. I remember my dad, I know bits and pieces about his life and was called to take his body upon his death. To know absolutely nothing about from whence you came would be awful IMO.
That's probably a good description of where we are now. But as for history, well, almost everyone had a problem with gay rights, pretty much everywhere and forever until recent decades.
I'm not sure that's completely accurate, as historically, acceptance of gay people has waxed and waned. But you accurately described the way were were and now are.
Thank you for your comment Alice. I hope you enjoy the Girard lecture--his thought is a profound key to understanding our time, and David Perell and Jonathan Bi have done a great job of discussing Girard's ideas with excellent clarity.
Here’s the key 10 or 15 minutes when Jonathan Bi shows how mimetic desire has changed the meaning of love, truth, innovation and violence—if this grabs you, the rest of the lecture is probably worth the investment—and if not—you stayed within your 10 minute parameter: https://youtu.be/5Qu6vBebwwg?t=4177
Bless Your pointed li'l head, Sir! *Much* appreciated. Doesn't incline me to watch the whole video, but I did put "When These Things Begin" on list. TYTY again.
O, I miss archness. How on earth the freest generation raised the most Puritanical, whiny, intolerant generation is one for the history books right there. The other day I read a post on FB by a guy whose daughter is now a 'they' -- 'they' was SAD that comedians seem to "hate" people like "them" -- I so badly wanted to ARCHLY comment: TELL HER TO GROW A PAIR.
It's very much like someone running onto an archery range, standing in front of a target and yelling "Why are they shooting at me!?? They must hate me!!"
Me too. I grew up around the theater and worked as a professional musician for 15 years. That archness is one of the qualities I loved most about my LGB friends. Well the ones that wanted to be known anyway.
Celia M below really stated what I was thinking... "Demand free speech until you have gained enough power to control the speech of others. Once you have that power, use it ruthlessly to silence all speech of which you do not approve."
This veteran's mind immediately diverts to over 90 American citizens(some veterans) who are held in solitary confinement for 23 hrs/day without due process(or sanitation) for 16 months now... for simply walking into their Capitol and taking pictures during their electoral process. But I digress...
For the normal homosexual people out there - yes, I consider you normal as it has been around since time began - please be aware that you are being used as a tool to obtain power and adjust accordingly.
This is so obvious to anyone with any sense of history. The American cultural and legal tradition is precisely what has enabled all these different people w diverse preferences and backgrounds to
Live together . For thousands of years homosexuality was thought to be a sin or a mental illness; slavery was accepted. Hearts and minds changed, why? Cause the people had freedom as enshrined in the bill of rights
The gender-identity radicals are helping to sink the Democratic Party especially among liberal suburban voters. Parents don't want their 5 & 6 year-old children to be taught transgender sex education at such a young age. This school curriculum issue, along with CRT indoctrination, are killing the Democratic Party among moderate and Independent voters. Advice to radical Democratic woke activists: pay attention to Virginia and Florida parents/voters. Finally, dismiss their viewpoints as racist at your own political peril.
I tried to deliver this exact message to my close long time friend who works at a very high level of the DNC as a voter protection attorney. About two weeks ago we had a long discussion about this topic. In our conversation she revealed herself to be absolutely baffled as to why democratic candidates are polling so badly among moderate and independent voters. I told her that the situation going on with voters in Virginia and Florida just sums up the gist of the situation and if the Democratic Party strategists don’t confront that reality... we’ll, good luck with that. Her response was to immediately dismiss what I said as “right wing propaganda “. That’s always the response now, right? Just refer to anything that threatens your agenda as right wing nonsense. She told me that the only reason Terry McAuliffe lost the election in Virginia was because the DNC volunteers got lazy and just weren’t out “knocking on enough doors”. Good grief, I guess she actually believes that. I told her that from my perspective it just seems like for some bizarre reason the Democratic Party wants their candidates to lose in a very big way at the midterms and beyond.
It’s called mass formation psychosis and it seems to be everywhere! Any Democrat like my sister (and your friend?) who cannot see that her party has collapsed into itself has her own identity problem. My hope is that eventually she will come to see how off-the-rails her party has become and either try to reform it from within or find something else to worship besides politics.
"Civics? What's that?" would be the response of anyone out of grade school/high school after about...1985? or thereabouts.
I'm old enough to have gotten the "My country right or wrong! Rah-Rah-Rah U-S-A!!" version of "civics" and fought my teachers all the way.
"Why, when we 'make a country safe for democracy', do they always end up with some military guy in power who is dependent on our weapons to stay in power? I'm gonna reject coincidence here."
Got in some trouble, but not a lot. The other kids liked having someone derail the lessons and distract the teacher and the teachers mostly liked having someone, ANYONE, who was interested enough to engage. But they don't teach 'civics' any more.
That's my hope. And hopefully they'll make their will known at the ballot box.
Dunno that's enough to stop the insanity, tho. And there's not enough people who are in a position to risk their livelihoods and protest against this crap. Protest as vehemently as it requires. IMO.
As a gay man, I'm going to be civil and friendly to my neighbors whose views are similar to mine, and ESPECIALLY to those who don't like gay people (as long as they're not violent towards me or destructive of my property, which I won't tolerate) because I hope that, over time, they'll see me and my partner as just neighbors going about our lives and not having any "agenda" other than to live in peace. They'll hopefully see we're helpful, civic minded, have no desire to "convert" their kids, and will help them in times of need despite our different views. I'll answer their questions rather than snubbing them, even the ridiculous ones I've been asked like "which one of you is the wife."
I was (I think) able to change at least one person's mind. A woman I know at work said "I don't care what you do but you should stay in the closet." My reply was: "Which is more harmful--two guys living together of their own free will or a guy pretending to be straight, marrying a woman and then her life is miserable because he's always got a big secret." Same woman said "why do you flaunt it" when she saw my partner's photo on my desk. My reply: "Do you keep your husband's photo on your desk to flaunt it, or because seeing him during the day makes you happy at work?" If I had just written her off as a homophobe, that's what she'd still be. While we're certainly not friends, we do get along now.
It really disturbs me how so many people attack those who are generally supportive just because their views don't align 100%. There are much better battles to fight.
That's where ya gotta start, though. Meet people where they are and 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑤 them their conclusions are in error. She never rationally thought herself to the conclusion that gays were bad, so argument is not recommended as a tactic.
Going back to the column from last week about raising sheep:
Parenting has become, for some reason I cannot understand other than selfishness, centered on protecting children from harm instead of teaching them how to navigate harm: hopefully avoiding it but if not handling it. It's almost as if parents have been trained that their worth is in being the bubble around the child instead of the teacher of the child.
For the last 20 years, maybe longer, so many children grew up with a near complete absence of "feeling bad" because parents shielded them (and because we have lived, in the US, in an era of unknown peace and prosperity). Now, as adults, when their parents can no longer protect them, when they "feel bad" they assume the problem is outside of themselves and the only way to "feel good" is to squash whatever makes them "feel bad". Like a very young child, they only thing they know how to do is throw a temper tantrum.
Outstanding view, Neil--centered on protecting children from harm instead of teaching them how to deal with it.
Much better to teach kids how to not fall off their bikes and skin up their knees--or, if they do, how to put on the Bactine and bandages so they heal--then to scream at the city council about how highways need to be bouncy-house soft because My Child.
Life throws challenges, both good and evil, at us all the time. Kids are better of learning how to duck, dodge, weave, comply, resist, and/or counterattack than insist the lightning should not have struck. Lightening doesn't care if you yell at it.
Adults should be able to live their lives as they prefer, as long as they don’t infringe on other citizens rights. I am allowed to believe and say what I think of those behaviors. They are trying to bully my beliefs out of existence.
Unfortunately, this seems to be the historical pattern of revolutionaries: Demand free speech until you have gained enough power to control the speech of others. Once you have that power, use it ruthlessly to silence all speech of which you do not approve.
As I consider this article, I can't help suspecting that the LGBT+ movement may have been being *used* all along. Ordinary homosexual people may have simply wanted the freedom to live their own lives. But they were being used as cover by nefarious people who cared very little about the freedom of gay people to lead normal lives, but a great deal about the ability of openly flamboyant homosexuality to destroy societal norms.
The Woke Marxist effort to destroy Western civilization so they can build their utopia on its ashes appears to have played their LGBT+ allies.
You are right. The LGB community got what it wanted so they could no longer be counted on to be disrupters. Must invent a new greivance group. The utter ridiculousness of all these gender categories exposes how bold they are and how cowed the rest of us are expected to be. I refuse.
Professional activists always need the problem to continue so they can continue grifting. It's the same with the rise of BLM.
I'm a gay man and do not identify with these idiots. Live and let live, that's all I ever wanted. And that means letting people think what they want about me, or other gay people. It goes two ways.
Vernon…..OMG, what you just said was perfect. Lead your life, people, and get out of everyone else’s. No one needs to know what your makeup is. Get over it!
:) Thank you. "Live and let live" is how I always used to think. But the "T" is so crazy aggressive. I truly think the gender ideology cult has to be put down big time. Then, we set up a museum so that it never happens again. It is marketed aggressively in schools and harming so many young people. It is hard to believe that we have gotten to this place of "use your pronouns" and common place cross sex hormones. It is the progressive religion of our time. Pharma must be making $$$
""The anger of parents whose children have been introduced to the genderbread person or socially transitioned behind their backs in schools has been underestimated. Schools, a major source of affirmation, are fast becoming the next and maybe last battleground in the gender war."
https://pitt.substack.com/p/i-am-not-the-same-teacher?s=r
Yip “it’s a problem they don’t want solved” it’s called Grifters paradise What will they plug if they don’t keep on with the same bullshit and remember they have MSM and SM plugging every story magnifying the lies eventually selling it as the truth and in the end it doesn’t matter what we the people believe or think it’s about the activist and how many people they can sell there rubbish to
Thanks. Best wishes!!
exactly...I always thought I had enough problems, I didn't need to worry about what other folks wanted to do.
I was stunned (although I realize now that I should not have been) that the activists pivoted so rapidly to "trans rights" when gay marriage was abruptly and unexpectedly decided by judicial fiat.
Maybe because, for the "activists" it's never about human rights but advancing an agenda of destroying the United States?
I think it’s more fighting for the sake of fighting. I recall Jordan Peterson discussing this issue with Bari Weiss in their summer of 2021 YouTube conversation. He was bringing up the reaction of the small group in the audience when he mentioned “bloody revolution” in his conversation with Slavic Zizec. At these words a group of the audience cheered. These are the ones who need a bloody revolution for a sake of feeling they are fighting. Their own unresolved personal issues, anger towards their mom / dad/ fill in the blank.
TY. No doubt part-a the problem.
Yup.
So it appears that progressive orthodoxy has infected the LGBTQ+++++ community, Bruce. Like everything else.
It's toxic, yes. Turns allies into enemies, yes. Make an independent like me vomit, yes. But one sure thing about orthodoxy and group think, it turns people blind as, lemming like, they run off the cliff. Blind followers do not last very long.
So by being so blind, by the light of the cause they espouse, so to speak - can't compel me to say they have an agenda to destroy anything. Not be design.
You might be giving them power they do not deserve. They're not thinking that far ahead; they're too busy protecting their gains by denying the right to opposing views. And that makes them weak. It reveals that the 'movement' (as it were) is insecure. (and, by extension, impermanent).
They're too sacrosanct and narrow minded to strategize, imo. And they need to strategize to advance an agenda. They're just not smart enough.
But of course, that's just my opinion.
I KNEW there would be an immediate pivot to some issue relating to sexuality the minute that the right to gay marriage was secured. I didn't realize it was the Marxian left behind all the social agitation at the time; I just had observed that there is a large population of people who have to be perpetual activists, perpetually enraged about SOMETHING.
I guessed that the next issue would be government-recognized polyamory, but instead it was Transosaurus who came stomping out of the gate.
You do realize they never stop. I suspect normalizing pedophilia is next.
Normalizing pedophilia isn't "next." It's going on right now as we speak. Didn't You get the message? They aren't pedophiles. Not any more. I forget the unbelievable euphemism they came up with. They're trying to normalize the abnormal.
Some for political purposes, mainly. As others have noted. Tear down society to build it back up a lot *worse* than it is now.
Minor-Attracted Persons. MAPs. Like the roadmap for destroying Western civilization.
Yeah, that was it. MAP, just like You said, Celia. <double-puke>
I fear for our dogs
Dogs? That is just sick but then a goat...
That'll probably be next after pedophiles are considered as normal as You and me.
There's also a movement out to destigmatize untreated mental illness, as in, "don't take your meds, you're normal as is." And, of course, at the same time there's a movement to tell people, "don't be ashamed of mainlining fentanyl."
I read an article recently about advertising on the NYC subway for the city sanctioned drug dens that use the catch phrase "Empower Yourself". By using drugs? That is what NYC is spending funds on. Not cameras and security down there but marketing to drug users.
Yeah. I think it was two TGIF's ago that M. Bowles made a comment on how some-a that kind don't want schizophrenics to take meds. She mentioned quote in NYT article that they just experienced, get this: "non-consensus realities." Somebody said she should look into it more seriously. I said otherwise.
The euphemism is Minor Attracted People or MAPS. There is lots of drag stuff for children now like "WATCH: Paramount+ sponsors drag event where child dances on stage for money" https://thepostmillennial.com/watch-paramount-sponsors-drag-event-where-child-dances-on-stage-for-money?utm_campaign=64470
Appalling
jt...euphy called Biden...that unbelievable? nice hit.
An interesting and relevant Twitter thread https://twitter.com/conceptualjames/status/1531465109100544000?s=21
Yeah, I heard about SEL. First was back, I dunno, probably more 'n five years ago. Anyway, a while ago. Later on it turned Woke. Had an *agenda* attached to what was originally something beneficial. And started collecting data.
It's being *sold* as something beneficial to the kids. The Woke education establishment seems to love it for other reasons. I dunno how many thousands and thousands of kids are going under the SEL spell. IMO, of course.
In the corporate world, something similar happened with ESG. A good idea at first that got corrupted/wokified very quickly.
Let me be the first to proclaim my disdain for pedophilia. I have a yard sign that says 'We don't abide pedophilia at this house!!!'. That's right, three exclamation points.
😎
Maybe polygamy first, then pedophilia. The Man-Boy Love Association must be frustrated about already dropping to lower priority than the trans.
I had thought somewhat facetiously in the days of discussing gay marriage that once that was accepted, next would be polygamy and bestiality.
At the time I thought I was joking
I saw a headline in past couple days about polygamy. Didn't know it was coming up so fast.
I really *am* starting to fear for the dogs.
Two words for anyone with sexual interest in my grandchildren or my dog:
John
Wick
I can't recall. I may have mentioned before that I'm lame. In a lotta respects, but especially when it comes to movies. Never even heard-a this one. What can I say?
Dogs have teeth to defend themselves.
Ah. They're lucky that way. ;-)
Problem is Woke have sharp daggers, of the verbal kind that can get You fired. People just gonna hafta develop sharper teeth.
Only now they call it polyamory.
Funny how the euphemisms cover up the actions.
I REFUSE TO!!!
I agree.
“…..but a great deal about the ability of openly flamboyant homosexuality to destroy societal norms.”
————————————————-
I have written before about how pride parades represent the most aggressive homophobic smear in our society. It gives the average person the impression that gay people wear leather vests and carry pink dildos around.
No, most of them are just normal. Like my sister (unmarried) who drives a Mercedes and is a professor. She doesn’t strut down the street in a weird outfit.
Gay pride parades are basically the same as the gun rights people who go out wearing tactical gear and open carrying a machine gun. Jackasses.
(my sister hates this argument and will not admit I am right but I can tell she knows I’m right 😂😂)
If straight people went around dressed like people at Pride, they would get the same disgusted reaction. Most people don't want to see other people's kinks displayed in public. And when children are involved, that kind of display becomes child abuse.
it just proves that some people flaunt their weirdness. and why? why have a "gay parade" at all. what does it prove
They're for it if it serves the larger cause...which would be The Destruction of Heteronormativity. Our hunter-gatherer forefathers would be really disappointed.
Here's something I've pondered: Since the Gay Pride parades have been re-branded as simply "Pride" parades, and since there is so much kink on display at these events---in what way are they still "Gay?'
For instance, there has been a lot of BDSM on display at these parades. Well, plenty of straight people are into leather and BDSM and Furries etc etc etc. How is it logical then that straight people who are expressing a fundamental basis of their sexuality aren't marching openly under the banner of "Pride" in their kink?
| If straight people went around dressed like people at Pride ...
Go to Mardis Gras, spring break or any kind comic book or cosplay convention. True, the mostly (or actual) naked people stand out at these events, including pride, but most are pretty boring (lesbian chess club, gay nurses, etc.)
Celia...Straight.
So many chomo dems, so little time.
It wasn't gay pride a**less chaps wearing folk who made being gay accepted. It was the countless brave people who came out to their friends and families- the insurance agent, the letter carrier, the lawyer, the electrician who were our neighbors. It was they who showed hetrosexuals that gays are people we love and trust (and sometimes don't like or trust). In short "they" are "us".
For a time I lived on Jane St in Manhattan. Ground zero for the insanity you describe on Gay Pride parade day. Lunacy glorified. The topless women were mundane but the guy in the leather chaps - completely bare behind - still stands out. Seriously - leather chaps in summer?
hopefully they were white leather. if after Memorial day. geez
but just until Labor Day
LOL!
You should see the undercover videos of the festivals in San Francisco. Blatant nudity and sexual activity.
Reminds me of the great Onion article "Gay Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance of Gays Back 50 Years".
"Allison Weber, 43, an El Segundo marketing consultant, also had her perceptions and assumptions about gays challenged by the parade.
"My understanding was that gay people are just like everybody else–decent, hard-working people who care about their communities and have loving, committed relationships," Weber said. "But, after this terrifying spectacle, I don't want them teaching my kids or living in my neighborhood.""
Oh: https://www.theonion.com/gay-pride-parade-sets-mainstream-acceptance-of-gays-bac-1819566014
Satire sites are becoming less and less distinguishable from reality.
I think it was Town Hall maybe? But it was just covered how many Babylon Bee headlines went on to be true. So many I stopped reading.
My gay brother turned against gay activism after a stint living in West Hollywood.
"These people are vile, and they don't just want rights, or acceptance, they insist they be ADMIRED for their depravity." (Or course, he worked in porn, so he saw the worst, I guess...)
I imagine they were a rough bunch :)
I would say you are correct, a "normy" gay guy who regularly cringes at "Pride" excesses .
Another commenter was recalling the difficulties some of his friends who are gay experienced rising in the corporate world. That was of course terrible but that basically does not exist now because if you tried it as a company or employer or coworker you would face a firing squad, perhaps a literal one.
Having gotten past those very legitimate problems, we can now move on to smaller stuff like explaining to everyone how having ‘pride’ in an immutable characteristic is poisonous and silly and it needs to stop generally.
The vast majority of people have difficulty rising in the corporate world. The number of positions available decrease substantially with each rung up the ladder.
I'm a gay dude and I always hated pride parades. They're annoying AF.
Back in the day, early 1970s, I found the annual pride parade to actually be useful in helping folks like me feel stronger, and even the national marches were culturally pretty tame, though the media of course focused their cameras on those who dressed most provocatively. I quit attending, though, in the 1980s. As a New Yorker cartoon showing two men sitting on a couch, one of them talking on the phone, put it (quoting from memory), “We’re not going this year. We’re here. We’re queer. We’re use to it.”
Yep! By the time I was out (1992) it was all annoying dance music and corporate floats.
I actually liked L.A.'s parade. C and D list celebs, plus it was short and an actual celebration. San Francisco's parade was insufferable--at least four hours of every politician and activist org you can imagine which completely takes the fun out of it. Haven't gone to New York's yet but sounds more like SF's than LA's.
It must be really difficult to have a parade in SF. You have to tiptoe around the human feces.
Yes I think that activism is often co-opted by nefarious actors. To me anymore I'm skeptical of anybody claiming to be an activist.
or a "leader." Them's some dangerous narcissists there.
or an "ally".
Narcissists and/or grifters. Neither good will nor open minds.
I have posted this before but I think it is appropriate to post it again:
"Some call the left, liberals. I can't bring myself to do that. A true liberal embraces free speech. John Stuart Mill one of the founders of liberalism was a staunch defender of free speech. He said in his essay on liberalism, I'm paraphrasing here, 'You should listen to your adversaries because they might be right.'
The left today are not liberals. If you don't agree with the left, you are pilloried by the left. I read the definition of a racist, "Is anyone who wins an argument with a liberal."
Whatever happened to, 'I may not agree with you but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'? In July of 1977 the American NAZI Party was going to march through Skokie, Illinois. Seven Thousand Holocaust survivors lived in Skokie. Words cannot describe how disgusted and appalled I was by this proposed vile act. Of all people who defended this atrocity was the ACLU. I was shocked until I heard why they were defended the NAZIs right to march.
They weren't defending the NAZIs. They were defending the First Amendment, freedom of expression. I am a gentile and much as I despised the NAZIs I love the First Amendment more. I only wish the left loved the First Amendment as much as I do but they don't.
So please stop calling them liberals because they aren't. They are tyrants."
I call them "Regressives".
As George Carlin noted about Shell Shock becoming Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, simple language is best. I call them Assholes.
I never call them liberals, because they are not.
One of the interesting things to come out of the Allison Bailey tribunal was how a group of TRA became determined to couple the T to the LGB. One of the barristers testified that she was the person who rediscovered the trans person who had been at the Stonewall and thus she sought to show that trans people had always been a part of the gay rights movement.
There are reasons why the LGB Alliance was formed in the UK and why a number of prominent founders of Stonewall have distanced themselves from the charity.
Now your daughter comes home from school believing that half the women in history who did not conform to stereotypes "were trans".
"Were actually men.", rather. How very demeaning to women!! As we have seen it used as a sort of "genocide" against lesbians..."You don't have same sex attraction, you're a MAN, baby!!
Yes, and gender is used to explain any difference or teen discomfort at school.
Real fingers on a chalkboard for me. How do you define trans? Until the 1920s there was no concept of trans -- being able to change sex. There are a variety of reasons why women would hide their natal sex including a desire to participate in a profession. Mary Ann Buckley/James Barrie is perhaps the most famous example. Barrie preformed the first c section where both mother and child lived. After Barrie's death, the laying out woman discovered through the pregnancy scars that Barrie was a woman. The Royal Navy sealed the records for a 100 years. There are reports of women dressing as men to serve in the armed forces. Deborah Sampson was one, but she wasn't trans, she wanted adventure. During the Viking period, women who were warriors were considered to be men (ie they didn't do women's work nor were they buried with spindles etc) but they didn't think they could change sex. Until 2017 when the tooth enamel isotoping came in, archaeologists used to do sex id of graves when the skeletons were badly degraded by grave goods. The archaeologist who was involved in the Birka Viking woman warrior discovery has repeatedly warned against assuming that the woman in question was trans.
Exactly. Our daughters get a revisionist education. No one can change his or her sex. Ever. A person might change appearances up to a point. "Trans" is a crazy fantasy promoted as fact. Sure, there may be a handful of people with this so called "gender dysphoria" but that is a mental disorder - however it is handled. This goes beyond being respectful of the mentally disordered - or merely "non-conforming" (gosh I'd be rich if I had $1 for every girl and young woman today who is performing "non-conforming" in an identical manner). We need to take down "gender" for the crazy it is.
It will happen, partly because so-called bikini medicine is being shown through research to be a false premise. Today, another paper came out, this time about the best times for males and females to do exercise. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2022.893783/full In recent weeks, you have papers come out about the treatment of asthma and how 2/3 more females die than males and these deaths appear to be linked to menopause and puberty. One size does not fit all. They already know about male/female heart disease. There is also the binary peptides in tooth enamel which is making the sexing of badly degraded skeletons much easier. They really have just started studying this in 2016 and it is really interesting to discover if it is gender related (ie wearing high heels) or if it is biological sex as a variable. And sex is proving to be more of a variable than people thought.
Equally the long term side effects of the cross sex medication are becoming more apparent. Even though people have signed informed consent forms, they may not be enough protection. I suspect there will be malpractice suits in the future. (It gives me no great pleasure to say this)
I am for the eradication of this new fangled cult definition of "gender" as being part of your "soul" as opposed to wearing heels one day and loafers another. I don't remember even voting on it. It just took over.
I think it may take massive class action lawsuits and I look forward to that very much. You are very informed so you probably know about the Steve Levine study "Reconsidering Informed Consent for Trans-Identified Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults"
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2046221
I think our government and the school systems have a great deal to answer for in the US as well as those in the medical and pharma communities and I hope they will be held to account soon.
I think the gay rights movement always had 2 factions: the normies and the revolutionaries. The normies got everything they wanted, so they packed in their activism and called it a day. By default, that meant the post-gay marriage LGBT+ movement is a movement by revolutionaries, for revolutionaries.
I'm hoping that getting called "groomers" is a wake-up call to the normies that they're being used as cover by, yes, some really nefarious people.
Great point, Celia. The LGBT+ community is being manipulated from without by progressive marxists, and James figured it out and verbalized it quicker than most of us. It's the same playbook they have been using to manipulate the African American community and the Latino community. What all these groups have in common is an increasing unease about how they are being represented, and the growing knowledge that the far left, at the end of the day, could care less about any of them.
The Latino community seems to be catching onto that faster than the black community. Some of these big cities have had an unbroken history of Democratic leadership for 50+ years, but the lives of black people in those cities have not improved.
I see more and more black conservatives, but they get attacked relentlessly by the Left, often in horribly racist ways. So much for the idea that Democratic are the non-racist party!
I agree on all counts. We'll see if this generation of conservative African-Americans gets some real traction on improving things. Progressives won't give up this core constituency quietly - they control too much power and they like it that way.
Frank Herbert put it best: "When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles." Modern progressivism in a nutshell: preach tolerance until you gain power, then crush all dissent. I'll let you guess which stage we're in.
My only complain with this article is the continued distinction between "good pro-gay-rights liberalism" and "bad woke progressivism". Like David Brooks yesterday and Nellie frequently, this author is unwilling to see the connection between liberalism ("race, class, and sex constraints are oppressive and must be overturned") and progressive wokeness ("wrong beliefs about race, class, and sex constraints are oppressive and must be silenced").
Liberalism claims that "individual freedom" is the highest social good. If that is true, then "free speech" is not the highest good. So anyone arguing against maximal individual freedom is not entitled to "free speech", because they are seeking to use that right to overturn a greater right. This isn't hard, and yet so many liberals miss this obvious philosophical connection.
Free speech is a component of individual freedom; individuals should be free to speak their mind. So no, there's no contradiction there.
There are a few philosophical differences between liberalism and progressivism; when it comes to free speech, progressives believe that self-defined "marginalized groups" should have a "right to not encounter offensive speech", which naturally supercedes any right to free speech.
I see the group identity stuff as a separate problem. In the big picture, liberalism is premised on "liberating" people from unchosen obligations, a gradual reduction in constraints on the basis of class, race, religion, sex, effort, personal behavior, and now even biology itself. 3 centuries of liberalism in 1 sentence: if an institution, custom or law involuntarily constrains my choices, it must fall. I didn't phrase it well in my original comment. If unchosen constraints are evil, anyone who advocates for such constraints must also be evil. Evil should not be negotiated with; it should be crushed. Hence, wokeness.
The key is whether "individual autonomy" as the HIGHEST social good. Plato, Augustine, Aquinas would all argue it is not. Hobbes and Locke would both argue (from opposite directions) that it is. I believe we are living through the logical outcome of Lockean philosophy. Having run down the shared cultural capital of those first 3 men, we are left only with individual autonomy on which to ground our society. Such a society can have no shared standards, virtues, or norms, since all such rules must give way to the individual's desire for personal liberty. Lockean philosophy is an anti-culture. The anti-dote is to abandon it. As C.S. Lewis says, "when you're on the wrong road, the most progressive man is the one who turns around first."
What you're describing isn't liberalism so much as anarchism.
Liberalism would say that constraints on individual choice need to be justified on a case-by-case basis. Outlawing murder, for instance, constrains my choice to go around killing people, but liberalism doesn't argue for the end of criminalizing homicide.
To the extent that liberalism opposes institutional/customary/legal constraints on individual choice, it's generally because those constraints are either unnecessary or else they create more problems than they solve.
Since you mentioned Augustine and Aquinas, they both took the view that heresy against the (Catholic) church should be a punishable offense, and that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). That's a great example of a......shall we say.....questionable constraint on individual autonomy, that liberalism would say should be torn down.
Obviously Mill's "my rights end at your nose" argument holds for liberalism (eg: your murder example). But notice that by dissolving norms and customs, liberalism ends up requiring a large state to police the inevitable conflicts between rights and noses (eg: Jack Phillips bakery.)
"it's generally because those constraints are either unnecessary or else they create more problems than they solve"
I do not think history bears out this statement. Liberalism wants to see itself this way, but I cannot think of a case where it has sided with any social norm or institution over individual autonomy. Can you?
"Augustine and Aquinas took the view that heresy should be a punishable offense"
Yes they did. They believed in a strong God who had standards. It is precisely that "strong God" view that Enlightenment liberals were rebelling against. Coming off of 200 years of European religious wars sparked by the Protestant Reformation, they intentionally created a system which would be immune to those conflicts by having no codified confessional or religio/moral standards. Except one: my rights end at your nose. The only blasphemy in liberalism is to criticize maximal individual autonomy.
But individual autonomy is a weak God, precisely because it has no standards for human behavior. In the course of the next 250 years, we gradually ran down the cultural capital of the previous 17 centuries.
Thus today we cannot condemn:
drag queen story hour (a blessing of liberty according to David French)
enormous wealth disparities (they earned it)
endemic pornography (it's in the privacy of his own home)
crazy homeless people (they have a right to live that way)
drug abuse (who am I to judge what they put into their body)
abortion (Mom's bodily autonomy)
All of these have answers in the Greco-Judeo-Christian history called Western Civilization. Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas could respond to any of them in clear moral terms. We can not, because our liberal philosophy lacks any moral tools beyond "individual rights".
"liberalism ends up requiring a large state to police the inevitable conflicts between rights and noses" - still beats the alternative of people dueling in the streets.
"I cannot think of a case where liberalism has sided with any social norm or institution over individual autonomy." I can - bestiality and disturbing graves just as 2 examples.
"The only blasphemy in liberalism is to criticize maximal individual autonomy." - if that were true, then Mill's "my rights end at your nose" would have been blasphemy, so you're still arguing strawmen.
"Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas could respond to any of them in clear moral terms." - not really, because their answers would have been predominantly sectarian. "The Pope says it's bad" is not particularly convincing to a Buddhist.
Liberalism, as embraced by our Founders, was based on the premise that personal liberty was limited *to the person.* Behavior that took away another person's liberty--specifically in the form of their life and property--MUST be forbidden (that is, limited).
"so many liberals miss this obvious philosophical connection." They don't miss it. They know exactly what they are doing and it's called tyranny.
You are one cynical cat. :-) The leaders, yes, but I can't believe this about 40% of my fellow Americans.
Please read the statement above in quotes - so many liberals - not all. I can't call them liberals. I call them leftists. liberals believe in free speech.
Once again Celia, you have hit the nail on the head.
The political class uses every group they can.
Beautifully stated.
Celia, this is a little off topic but I know you would be interested in this.
This is madness: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/if-schools-don-t-let-boys-into-girls-bathrooms-biden-will-take-their-lunch-money/ar-AAXJFM4
I wonder what the repercussions will be when normalcy returns? Will we see a new litigation industry emerge: "wrongful gender transition damages"? Will the pendulum swing too far back? and many other questions...
I would hope so, but it won't happen.
No Presidents held accountable for their followers rioting.
No generals held accountable for Afghanistan.
No Uvalde police held accountable for standing by the door.
No doctors held accountable for convincing otherwise normal teenagers to sterilize themselves.
Dunno. But I'd like to see a certain class of doctors lose their licenses. At a minimum.
Celia M: James Kirchick embraces speech from both sides. He points out “…the lack of respect for viewpoint diversity and the pressure to conform….” He refers to; the BBC’s news chief comment: “You’ll hear things you don’t personally like and see things you don’t like….” He mentions the Yale law professor Kate Stith getting the middle finger from students who were trying to prevent the exercise of free speech. You gave me the middle finger when you said this: “George, “Just me” is a well-known troll on this forum. Most of us respond to him with the silence he deserves.” You were practicing in the call-out culture, you know, cancel culture. You claim to believe in free speech, and you object to cancel culture, but you don’t act that way!
Actually, cancel culture would be sliding into Substack's DMs and telling them to suspend your account because your posts are literal violence.
Much more accurate. Encouraging people not to engage is just polite warning, right or wrong,.
Miles, when people think their sensibilities have been offended, they reject, shame, and ostracize.
“Cancel culture is generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming.”
“the phenomenon or practice of publicly rejecting, boycotting, or ending support for particular people or groups because of their socially or morally unacceptable views or actions”
“a way of behaving in a society or group, especially on social media, in which it is common to completely reject and stop supporting someone because they have said or done something that offends you”
“Cancel culture or call-out culture is a contemporary phrase used to refer to a form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles.”
I guess it depends on whether or not you think "don't feed the troll" is a form of ostracism.
There was another guy, Marek, who got banned from the Common Sense comment section for being ridiculously homophobic. I suppose you could say he got canceled, but he got a LOT of mulligans first before it came to that.
Marek's gone? Gee, I hope it was something I said . . .
"Cancel culture," to me, means being unfairly exiled from platforms, jobs, and society for stating views that are reasonable to everyone except Woke activists whose eyes spin with glee they can put another head on their digital pikes. Trolls who pour hate and bitterness onto a forum are fairly removed to protect the sanctity of the forum, and only after a lot of fair warning. But they are not evicted from their livelihoods, lives, or other platforms.
miles, the definition of a troll: is someone who posts insincere, digressive, extraneous or off-topic comments in an online community. When I make comments, they are valid; the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency. And ostracism is: “the action of intentionally not including someone in a social group or activity.” By definition, I’m not a troll, I make valid comments, and for that reason, there are some who want to ostracize me for it.
I'm certainly not the only one who questions the sincerity of your posts, not to mention the cogency.
You predominantly just post trite woke talking points; I personally would call you a NPC before I'd call you a troll per se.
Calling posting on a comment section board a "social activity" is also a stretch; it's not like we're all in a room and everyone is physically turning their backs to you. I generally ignore your posts because, well, if you've talked to one woke NPC you've pretty much talked to all of them.
To use a campus example, ignoring someone is not attending their guest lecture. Cancel culture is trying to stop their guest lecture from even happening in the first place, so that NOBODY can attend it. You're being ignored, not canceled.
Ah well... I had-ta check in before reading (book).
Lemme abuse You with the *facts* of the matter, Just me. And the *facts* of the matter is that Celia was just explaining the *facts* of the matter to George. You *are* a troll. You come in here all innocent-like. Young kid just trying to learn.
Yeah. Riiiiiiight.
People point out how what You write here is *factually* incorrect, and Your typical response is immediately slinging personal insults. I'm just ashamed it took me so long to find out that all You are (when You display Yourself here anyway) is a troll, trying to make people made.
Yeah, I know it's great fun for You. I won't go into the psychology of that, at this time.
YOu start acting like an adult, instead-a going into the Woke's "boo hoo I'm a victim here" mode, and quit insulting people, and mebbe You'll get somebody to pay some serious attention to You.
Until then, You just keep sneaking up on the unsuspecting who don't know You as well as I do.
I like Celia and agree with her on most of what she says. I wish there were more leftists on this BBS. We need diverse points of view. Having said that every time over the years that I have tried to engage a leftist in civil, logical debate the leftist doesn't refute me. They change the subject and then curse me.
I really wish we could have calm, intelligent debate but in my experience it has never happened. I try to buttress my posts based on logic and history. I try to make my posts irrefutable and I know that is what infuriates the left because, I believe they cannot use the same tactics I use to strengthen their arguments because I believe their philosophies are based on lies.
I will give you an example. Based on history, Islam is not the religion of peace and all you have to do to prove this is read a condensed history of Islam. I have yet to find a leftist fanatic who has ever read a history book. If one of their leftist icons tells them Islam is the religion of peace, they don't research the lie. They believe it on face value which is false. They never question. Like little lemmings they are off to spread this dangerous lie.
I can give you numerous examples. The Democrat Party is not the feminist party. It is not the minorities party. It is not the party of civil liberties and I can prove all these things..
They don't want equality. they want equity. Big difference. Equality is for individuals. Equity is for groups. Even if the groups are unequal.
The irony is that people think it goes against enlightenment principles, when in actuality it goes against the oldest known civilizational principles - Judeo-Christian, Greek Polis, Hammurabic Code.. what have you. Don't Lie, Don't Kill, Don't Envy, Don't Steal...
I'm sure they have been being used. The party has slowly been taken over by the radicals, but now they are consolidating their control. Ironically, the only people keeping them from complete control are the geriatric Dems.
While there has always been a component of greed and envy in human societies, that tendency has been largely discouraged by conservative social forces, whether religious or cultural. But Marxism gave the envious a rallying point, and the "death of God" has removed the social bulwarks that kept organized envy from being acceptable.
If you met a woman who looked like she weighed 80 lbs but she insisted she was fat and needed to keep dieting, would you agree with her that she is fat and by all means keep starving herself? She has a body dysphoria, a mental problem, and needs help because she is hurting herself.
I see trans people the same way. But we don’t urge them to get help because we have been bullied into “affirming” them or risk being called transphobic. But they are hurting themselves, with the help of the medical community. Hormones, mutilating surgery, and therapists who agree with little children who think they are the opposite sex. Will we someday look on this the same way we look at lobotomies and shock therapy?
Homosexuality has existed for centuries, just look at ancient Greek art. But the explosion in people identifying as trans is fake. It’s a cry for something else— a need to be special, noticed, taken seriously, even solidarity with friends. It’s an attempt to fix something in a person’s life, but it’s not the solution. We used to roll our eyes at kids who went “Goth”. All that was reversible. Trans isn’t. I think the movement needs serious discrediting.
Surgically mutilating the bodies of confused adolescents, injecting drugs into children to shut down normal endocrine function, injecting cross sex hormones into children resulting in permanent sterilization along with a long list of other dangerous life long side effects.... it’s just beyond terrifying to think about. I absolutely believe that this entire scenario will soon be universally viewed as one of the largest medical malpractice scandals in modern times.
A 13 year old "trans girl" can consent to a 50 year old doctor cutting his balls off, but a 17-year old freshman "cis girl" can't consent to intercourse with her senior boyfriend in college. This is where we are.
Good point. Or buy alcohol or tobacco.
Ann, I'm beginning to believe it is the necessary first step to normalizing body "snatching," in the sense that it will ease public reticence about the body mutilation required for the transhumanists. If we can make it seem acceptable to experiment with these things, no one will push back when it's chips or dna or some other wonderful thing god-man wants to use to create immortal superhumans.
I’m afraid you are correct. It’s only part of why I’m feeling so terrified. Today I had an experience that has really got me shaking in my boots. My daughter is getting ready to turn 12. I received a reminder from the pediatrician’s office to schedule a well child visit. Included in the email was a linked questionnaire that my daughter is supposed to complete before coming to the appointment in which she is asked to specify her preferred pronoun. I was also notified, in this form letter, that once my daughter turns 12, her mother and father will no longer be able to have access to her medical records in order to protect her privacy. When I called the office to inquire about all this I was told that her privacy needed to be protected in case she desires access to “reproductive health care and abortion services “. Oh, now isn’t this just fantastic, I’m now supposed to let my completely normal healthy very NOT confused young daughter go into an exam room with a doctor with an agenda? . And my research tells me that all this crazy talk is endorsed by the American Pediatric Association. Her devout Catholic parents are supposed just supposed to go along with all this? Hell is going to freeze over before my husband and I let this happen.
Time to find a different doctor!
Agree. It might take some doing but it's worth it.
You have to give parental permission for the school nurse to give your daughter an aspirin but you can't stop her from getting an abortion? This is through "The Looking Glass", upside down.
Yes, and they specifically keep parents in the dark when names and pronouns are changed at school - a significant psychological intervention. And, the kid can leave campus to get cross sex hormones at Planned Parenthood without parental consent. Abortions are actually down but the hormones are a growing revenue stream for PP. Twelve is very young to not have your mother know everything.
Teenagers are not known for making great decisions. Until they are 18, parents should have the say on what medical procedures or medicines their "CHILDREN" should have, not some leftist nutcase. They are called "CHILDREN" for a reason.
I know I'm not saying anything new, but Planned Parenthood??? How is this anywhere in their wheelhouse? Oh, I see, a new stream of income...
Go figure. Evil is as evil does.
It's madness. Deliberate. Goal oriented. Evil.
At first, I thought that the craziness was just a result of an overloaded, non-responsive bureaucratic system. After 2 decades in the military, I'm very, very, tiresomely familiar with that very thing. And, for many years, that is exactly what it was.
Now, it's on purpose, and it's designed to bring about a real change, both physiological and societal. There is a real "method to the madness," and these evil people believe they have the right to make these decisions.
I'm with you, also shaking in my boots. I have 2 daughters of my own, 15 and 13, and this is just not ever going to happen, not ever.
Somewhere in the back of my mind, I have this vision that their plan is going to go seriously wrong, the results are going to be catastrophic, and those of us that resisted are going to be the only ones left capable of living a full life. It's sad, they will hate us, no doubt, but they will need all sorts of continual medical interventions just to survive, and we will live apart. It's a sad, unhappy vision, but I fear it might be true.
It won't go wrong without some very serious pushback from the rest of us.
Yeah. PUshback. So hard to do when You work for a living.
You should be very concerned. There will be "gender" talk behind your back at the doctor's office and at school. The kids minds are won over to the thinking long before it gets to hormones, etc.
They were better physicians when all they had was bleeding and leeches. All the professional organizations have gone bat spit crazy. Doctors and lawyers more than most.
find a different doctor and call a lawyer if you can't
Believe it.
ONe-a the trans women out there is Martin Rothblatt. He's multi-millionaire who started Sirius XM. Now has billion-dollar company making artificial organs from pigs. NO way he'll eventually try to develop an artificial womb, right?
*He* wrote a book called "From Transgender to Transhuman: A Manifesto On the Freedom Of Form." I have it, but haven't gotten to it. No doubt, pure drivel.
He also started his own religion called Terasem, I think. He isn't a nut-case, tho. (cough) He may be autistic, with off-the-scale intelligence and all. Strange that autistic people are prone towards being transgender. Have no idea how that could be.
Yes! And it’s relatedly perverse, it seems to me, that the other women’s rights issue at the moment is abortion. I’m pro abortion as a matter of public policy, but it bothers me that the big women’s issues focus on erasure and death.
Bingo. You nailed another one. I believe that Dr. Malone would call the "trans" cult a mass transformation psychosis. Starting with Salem, to the spiritualists to revivals to the day care sex abuse carnivals, madness periodically sweeps across our land.
Again check out the Girardian lecture explaining “mimetic desire” and how it’s shaping and transforming our world—rapidly and for the worse. It’s as fundamental a concept as natural selection: https://youtu.be/5Qu6vBebwwg
I agree. Interestingly Dr. Diane Ehrensaft who wrote a paper during the Presideo Precshool satanic abuse time is again a big player in the promotion of gender surgeries for young people. This mass psychosis has the backing of our federal government and the schools. It is so widespread and the numbers who suffer will be very large before it's over. I don't think there has ever been anything so huge that has been so suppressed by media. Time Magazine did publish an article of the subject but came out in favor of harming children.
I know someone who decided at the age of about 50 that he, married with children, was really a woman. So the taxpayers had to pay for his transition because he was a government worker. I don’t know if he’s had the chopadickfromme or not. He’s 6’5” and now has gained quite a bit of weight. (Maybe that’s his female side as we women all seem to gain weight as we get older). He never looks happy. His family doesn’t speak to him as he completely blindsided and humiliated his former wife. Heck the whole thing ended up in the weekly paper.
I cannot bring myself to call him a her because I knew him when he was Tom.
On a recent podcast with TT Exulansic, a YouTuber who has detransitioned, one of the medications that trans patients take (she named it, but I don’t recall it) makes you gain weight, citing I Am Jazz as a possible example of this.
Unwoke...x Gov of NJ did that, years back (name?). i don't find fault with their decision, maybe sorry. i had neighbors, for years, i didn't even notice, fine with me.
Give Tom a big Hello, should open things up, maybe.
Oh yah, cut the carbs. thanks.
With your username, I can't tell if you're trolling or not. Anyways, that's not what Jim McGreevey did at all. He gave a "homeland security job" to his unqualified secret boyfriend, and then came out as gay as a means to obfuscate the scandal. No one cared that he was gay. We did care that we used his position to create fake jobs for his boy toys.
And, he can never be a "her" no matter what he does.
I am sure it can be hard on some people’s psyche when they truly buy into the intersectional worldview. Think of the “trans racial” hoaxers (Rachel Dolezal, Jessica Krug) who both seemed to hang around activist circles and both learned the hard way that one cannot be “trans racial”. The same does not apply to gender, so well…I am sure some people have put two and two together. If, according to the ideology, both race and gender are social constructs, why aren’t both constructs equally flexible?
I am what you would call a Dissociative Identity Disorder skeptic. Those who claim to be suffering from this condition can switch genders according to their alternative personalities. However—as of recently—it is considered taboo for the alters to identify as being of a race that does not align the skin color of the “host”…I find it all very very interesting.
I’ve always found that double standard fascinating. Why is that anyone who goes out in blackface or in the case of some local elementary schools, a Moana costume at Halloween, considered cultural appropriation yet the same behavior in regards to sex and gender has its very own *special* protected status??? We celebrate biological males swimming with women but Rachel Dolezal was a biological Caucasian who was ostracized for her success at leading the local chapter of the NAACP.
I would love to see this topic covered more extensively.
"Will we someday look on this the same way we look at lobotomies and shock therapy?"
Weeeel... Yeah, we *will,* unless it's them who gets to write the history. The jury's still out on that one.
"I think the movement needs serious discrediting."
I'm gonna pour out some full-on Woke terminology: It needs to be "DISMANTLED."
STOMPED on like the COCKROACH it *is.*
But that's just me.
Exactly. Which is why I tell people it is not loving and kind to acquiesce to someone's pronouns du jour in the name of kindness. There is nothing whatsoever kind and loving about contributing to one's psychosis. By saying "you just be you, and I'll call you Jane instead of John, even though you have a penis and testicles and a full-on beard, because I don't want to hurt your feelings" is not loving. Ever. It is destructive to the other. I pray that the "someday" comes soon before more "irreversible damage" is done.
This is why I’ve recently taken to referring to trans people—especially those who merely identify as the opposite sex—as he/she and/or she/he when using pronouns. Mostly I avoid them.
Yes, and Goth was never taught and celebrated at school with it's own special language and a secret new name used behind the backs of the parents.
The last recorded lobotomy in the United States was performed by Dr. Walter Freeman in 1967 and ended in the death of the person on whom it was performed. However, Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) aka "shock therapy" is a safe, effective and FDA-approved medical treatment for a variety of mental health issues, particularly severe and persistent disorders that have not improved with medications. ECT has been shown to improve symptoms in about 80% of participating patients.
For whatever reason, the trans movement seems to affect the coastal areas of the U.S. more than the flyover areas.
Must be more repressive in the flyover areas
Well expressed. Thank you.
NCMaureen...says an awful lot, sure does...and with support.
NCMaureen, do you know the requirements for a child to receive puberty blockers and the age of medical consent in the United States, and generally how old the person needs to be before receiving genital gender-affirming surgeries?
I have read the following, from multiple different sources, over the past few months: girls as young as 14 are able to receive testosterone injections at planned parenthood after a single consultation interview with a “counselor”. Parental consent is not a requirement in this process. Not sure what qualifies one to be one of these “counselors “. As far as surgical intervention goes, it seems to be up to the discretion of individual surgeons. About a week ago I read about a surgeon in San Francisco, near my home, who advertises that he will do “top surgery” on patients as young as 13. So, I think the age of supposed consent just keeps going down! It’s hard to believe it could be true, but I’m afraid it just is.
Ann, please provide me with your sources so that I can check them for myself.
One of my sources is the article in City Journal on May 17 by Chris Rufo. The title of the article is “Banging beyond Binaries” . Make sure you are sitting down before you read that one. It’s very disturbing. That is where I first learned about the surgeon in San Francisco that I mentioned. In re reading the article today I realize that he is quoted as stating that he would be willing to consider doing surgery on patients as young as 10 years old. Let me now work on digging up my source on the testosterone injections at planned parenthood. I think I can find it for you.
You can read about the testosterone prescriptions at planned parenthood in the article titled “Planned Parenthood jumps into the Hormone Therapy Game “ by Alexandria Desanctis on 8/26/21 by The Ethics &Public Policy Center. The same article was posted by The National Review on 8/24/21.
The Gender Confirmation Center and Dr. Scott Mosser have some of the strictest criteria in the USA for operating on people below the age of 18. If the criteria are met, then the surgeons of the GCC will perform some forms of gender surgery on adolescents, and only with full consent of all legal guardians.
In general, Planned Parenthood can’t do hormone therapy on children younger than 18. the age of consent, without parental consent.
https://www.genderconfirmation.com/adolescents/#:~:text=The%20Gender%20Confirmation%20Center%20and,consent%20of%20all%20legal%20guardians
I use “M.” like the French do, for Monsieur but ALSO for Mesdames and Mademoiselle EQUALLY. That’s just me.
Don't waste Your time, M. Lowell. Just me will never learn. That's why he's an ignorant slut. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di4vv7MmRwc
All he'd hafta to do to become a genius is look at an issue and decide what he thinks is the truth of the matter. And dthen realize that the *exact opposite* is the truth. And then research that.
He never does that, and goes outta his way to ignore the facts of the matter. Common foible, which s/he or it has perfected.
NOTE: Many of the most egregious abuses have taken place in Great Britain.
Read Abigail Schrier’s book for all the shocking details on gender distorting surgeries
And that's the very book of which the mistakenly lauded Chase Strangio said, 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐴𝐶𝐿𝑈 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑠, that "Preventing this book from being published or ever read is a hill I will die on."
Shocking that anyone from the ACLU would say that of ANYTHING.
Shocking that a non-trans person would take such a wildly extreme position from nothing more than activist solidarity.
Shocking that anyone would ever think such a vile position makes him worthy of even the small "honor" of being a Parade Marshall or whatever lame "honor" they've bestowed upon him.
Definitely time for some action, starting with the easy, passive "Don't care." answer when accused of being transphobic.
NCMaureen, and who am I to believe: Shrier's book or Jack Turban MD MHS, published in psychology today?
“Shrier's book tells the stories of several young people who came out as transgender to their parents. The book claims that these adolescents and young adults were not actually transgender, but actually just confused. The problem is Shrier didn't actually interview any of these people she wrote about.”
“The author’s note points out that she only interviewed their parents, who uniformly did not accept their children’s transgender identities. Many of them were estranged from their kids because the children were so hurt by their parents' rejection. To actually understand the psychology of these young people, one would need to talk to them, not simply rely on stories from parents with whom they do not speak.”
“To make things worse, the author's note explains that Shrier changed details in the book to ensure the transgender people she wrote about would not be able to recognize themselves. In doing so, she ensured they could not provide their side of the story or point out any inaccuracies in her reporting.”
And had she left in any identifiable details, the screeching about "doxxing" would have deafened dogs, you snake.
Trollificus, you’re assuming that Shrier couldn’t have given details that only the transgender individual would have recognized and no one else.
You mean Jack Turban, MD who receives payments from the manufacturers of hormone blockers? I’ll trust Shrier over him any day.
Alejandra, Shrier's book is based on the rapid onset gender dysphoria hypothesis (ROGD); below, you will find why the study was invalid. A more recent study shows that (ROGD) does not exist.
“that Lisa Littman surveyed for her study on the (scientifically unsubstantiated) concept of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD). I was also rather stunned to learn that virtually all of this – the founding of two of those three websites, the first ever claims that social contagion causes kids to become transgender, the coining of "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria," and Littman's recruiting parents for her survey – happened within an extremely short period of time (roughly half a year).”
“In other words, this supposed study of ROGD is entirely based on the opinions of parents who frequent the very same three blogs that invented and vociferously promote the concept of ROGD. Frankly, this is the most blatant example of begging the question that I have ever seen in a research paper.”
“We did not find support within a clinical population for a new etiologic phenomenon of rapid onset gender dysphoria during adolescence. Among adolescents under age 16 years seen in specialized gender clinics, associations between more recent gender knowledge and factors hypothesized to be involved in rapid onset gender dysphoria were either not statistically significant, or were in the opposite direction to what would be hypothesized. This putative phenomenon was posited based on survey data from a convenience sample of parents recruited from websites,”
10
“and may represent the perceptions or experiences of those parents, rather than of adolescents, particularly those who may enter into clinical care. Similar analyses should be replicated using additional clinical and community data” sources. Our finding of lower anxiety severity/impairment scores in adolescents with more recent gender knowledge suggests the potential for longstanding experiences of gender dysphoria (or their social complications) playing a role in development of anxiety, which could also be explored in future research.
http://juliaserano.blogspot.com/2019/02/origins-of-social-contagion-and-rapid.html
You’ll have to cut and paste the below site.
https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(21)01085-4/fulltext
Where to begin, my friend?
Let’s start with this: Littman’s study—while indeed preliminary, based on parental surveys, and relying on a small sample— at is far from unique. The only unique aspect about the study is that trans activists tried to prevent it from being published and engaged in a campaign of intimidation against Littman. By doing so and interfering with academic freedom, trans activists are taking a deeply unscientific stance and sending a clear message to those scientists who are thinking about pursuing certain topics (Littman, btw, is not the only scientist who has endured such intimidation by trans activist). Yet, it remains that many of the questions related to the best treatment for gender dysphoria have not achieved anything resembling scientific consensus. Certainly, there is no real good explanation for the recent explosion of individuals identifying as trans and questions surrounding detransitioners are well worth investigating. For such matters to be explored scientifically, different sides of the of the debate need to be pursued objectively—without the involvement of activists. Objective science = good science, and—of course—those who identify as trans have the most at stake.
The best evidence to back up the need for more objective science surrounding these topics? WPATH whistle blowers Erica Anderson and Marci Bowers (who raise concerns about the reversible nature of interventions, about the association having become a scientific echo chamber and about recklessness on behalf of medical professionals) as well as changing attitudes in countries that were once at the vanguard of embracing these interventions (e.g., Sweden, Finland).
At the very least, Jack Turner, MD (Shrier and Littman’s most vocal critic) cannot be seen as an impartial voice on these matters.
She what I mean, Just me.
You're shown to be an idiot again, because You *are* an idiot. No doubt the flat-earthers can find scientific evidence in favor of their view. You can find evidence of any insane view, like Yours tend to be.
And what do You do. Come back and post the same crap. Along with Your insinuating insults.
The reason You're so batpoop *stupid* is that You never learn. And You'll never grow up for the same reason.
Shame. "A mind is a terrible thing to waste." ~ old commercial
NCMaureen, in a majority of states, the age of consent is 18, which means the ‘…shocking details on gender distorting surgeries….” It is being done with the permission of parents. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to get in between a parent and their child unless there is an overwhelming reason to do so!
This is my second comment to a troll for today. And I'm keeping a close count. Because You never learn. Confirmation bias to the max, evidently.
Not worth anybody's time, and I've "wasted" a lot on You lately.
This is what I'm talking about, Just me.
Yeah, in *some* cases it's done with the parent's permission. In some cases, it's *encouraged* by the parents.
But in a lotta other cases, the parents are completely caught off-guard. Mebbe You never "heard" the facts of the matter. In schools, it's often policy to tell kids going the trans way not to even *tell* their parents. You've heard that, right?
And it a lotta other cases, the parents are *coerced* into giving permission. Because of the pseudoscience that says if they don't, they're leading their kids to commit suicide. Told that, what parent *couldn't* go along with it.
And in other cases still, no. The parents do *not* give their permission, but accept the inevitable. And then, in some percentage of cases, the parents actively discourage their children from this insanity.
This is another case in point. You are so uninformed that Your opinions are basically worthless. And the reason is typical.
How can You make any claim to be intelligent, when You only look at one side of an issue. The reason You posted Your whatever-You-wanna-call-it is because it *sounds* logical, but omits the pertinent facts. Either that's intentional, which is pretty despicable, or You're just ignorant as the day is long. Take Your pick, Just me. I suspect the latter.
Ya know? Confirmation bias? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
We bet “just me” does… lol
I don't care about with whom you sleep. Or how your worship. Or the color of your skin.
But if you oppose freedom of speech, you are my enemy. Implacably so.
And I will treat you accordingly.
Yuuuuuuuuup!
👍🏻👍🏻
Very interesting piece, and not something I would have read elsewhere. I subscribe to Common Sense for this very reason.
One element that caught my attention was the phrase, "I identify as ...," used by people quoted by the author. It seems to me that this concept makes every "identity" essentially meaningless, just a role that goes on with no reality involved.
I identify as Queer right now, because I'm wearing my son's t-shirt, but later, when I put on a dress and go to Weight Watchers, I'll identify as a rather overweight old lady. It's all loo-loo.
Loopy.
And the shouting down continues in the UK -- last night TRA attempted to shout down the UK Education Minister because Nadhim Zahawi is on record as saying that women should be defined as Adult Human Female and believes in biology. The activists accused him of inciting hatred. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10869129/Trans-activists-hound-Nadhim-Zahawi-university-campus-chanting-Tory-scum.html
STOP THE PRESSES!
"the university's LGBTQUIA+ association" Okay, when did the "U" come into things?!? What the "heck" is *that* for?
And they say 'Trans rights are simply not up for debate, they are non-negotiable.' What that means, as You probably know, is that WOMEN's rights go right out the window. Who negotiated that?
"Prior to the protest, the society also said that it does not condone any violent behaviour.
'Any acts of violence at this event are discouraged and not to be affiliated with us,' it said."
So who *should* it be affiliated with? Convenient nobody is responsible for the hatred displayed against Nadhim Zahawi. And from them that are against hatred, no less.
Interesting. They know there will be violence, so they try to disclaim any responsibility for it in advance.
Don't know why they bother, they excuse themselves by claiming to have been "triggered".
Yeah. Cute idn't it.
One of the protestors hit a member of the Conservative Association, the events secretary over the head with a placard according to the Telegraph. The man was uninjured. No report on if the protestor was actually affiliated with Warwick LGBTQUIA+ or not. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/30/watch-trans-activists-hound-nadhim-zahawi-university-campus/
U apparently means *undefined* They are constantly adding new terms. Hard to keep up.
No one has negotiated this. Some of the trans demands are contrary to the UK Equality Act. Protected characteristics must be balanced, according to the most recent ECHR statement on the subject and single sex spaces are allowed under British law due to privacy, safety and dignity concerns.
Zahawi and the Department of Education are currently involved in drawing up guidelines for schools on how schools can handle children with gender dysmorphia in conjunction with the parents/guardians of the child in question.
Zahawi has tweeted that the young man in question ie Joel Cooper was polite and he was happy to have had a conversation with him and that he should not be hounded. https://twitter.com/nadhimzahawi/status/1531590554441621506
I'm glad there are still women's rights over across the pond. We haven't had that good-a luck over here.
And yeah, that was nice tweet from level-headed person.
The Mail has done an update, but this passage about the Warwick Pride people needs to be read several times. As I said -- it is hard to keep track of the different genders. What is *neptunic*, *genderfae*?
*Less is known about Warwick Pride's president, who goes by the first name Mia. A mathematics and physics undergraduate, Mia identifies as 'transgender, non-binary, genderfae, asexual, demiromantic' and 'neptunic'. Their interests include 'music, electronics, programming, arcana, community management and moderation' – and 'Lego'.
The communications officer Aurore is studying English Literature & History and identifies as 'woman, lesbian'. She says that she wants to promote Warwick Pride's events 'and help reaching out many queer students at Warwick to make their experience more safe and enjoyable'.
And the Treasurer and Trans & Aro/Ace Community Officer have used avatars in place of a photo of themselves on Warwick Pride's website. Treasurer Sylvia is studying MORSE and identifies as 'woman, transgender, predominantly heterosexual'. The Trans & Aro/Ace Community Officer goes by the name 'Uke/Jupiter', is studying Physics with Astrophysics and has listed 'dinosaurs' as a general interest.*
The Warwick Pride tweets accuse Zahawi of institutional transphobia as he has made it clear that parents/guardians must be informed if children appear to be experiencing gender dysphoria.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10870697/Trans-activist-heckled-Nadhim-Zahawi-Warwick-University-campus-son-Yvette-Cooper.html
Wow, that's some real kooks right there.
TY. And I thought I'd seen it all with "undefined." I guess I should be glad they don't add letters for all these to the TQUIA+ and all that. But now I wonder if these were included in the 70 i heard about, or as these new editions.
Pretty soon Merriam-Webster will come out with a trans dictionary, and we'll all-a us be saved.
Sometimes I think I have led a very sheltered life...I know students are going to student but...And this sort of explains why Yvette Cooper who used very pro-Women's Rights doesn't want to go down rabbit holes.
Heh. "Mia identifies as 'transgender, non-binary, genderfae, asexual, demiromantic' and 'neptunic'."
Jeez, sorry but I'm not interested in that much detail from my OWN sexual partners. Gotta leave some room for my preferences, okay?
My guess is that the "U" is for "Undecided". You, know, for people who want all of the other letters to be available to them as required for more convenient offense-taking and public accusations.
Remember the multiple choice tests? Is there a D choice--all of the above?
There will be, no doubt.
Yer funny.
Accused him of inciting hatred 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑒𝑥ℎ𝑖𝑏𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑑.
Why yes, sometimes I think I 𝑛𝑢𝑠𝑡 be taking crazy pills, lol.
And because it has just been reported by order-order, one of the people leading the disruption was the son of 2 very prominent Labour party members. Joel Cooper's mother Yvette famously said that she did not want to go down rabbit holes when defining a woman. https://order-order.com/2022/05/31/exclusive-yvette-coopers-son-led-trans-rights-disruption-of-zahawi-qa/
Obviously she’s not a biologist then.
very funny
Several years ago I introduced over dinner two of my oldest friends—both powerful, wealthy gay men. One had reached the top of one of the world’s largest financial institutions, the other ran a huge, extremely influential corporation. They reminisced about how rapidly the barriers they faced at the beginning of their careers had fallen. One of my friends famously came out at a time when he could have lost his job, become a pariah, and possibly even been imprisoned. The other friend never publicly came out but made no secret of his decades old relationship with a man. Both have daughters, natural or adopted, both are officially married to their husbands, both are covered in worldly honours and approval. What started out as a threatening secret disability in the 80s became an object of praise and career advancement.
They both talked about how startling, unexpected and almost disorienting this change of fortunes was for them. They were grateful—but also bewildered.
They may not know Rich Tafel but they probably do, and I don’t know if they like him but they are similar to him. But our world belongs to Urvashi Vaid and her radical shock troops. My friends might as well be Trump Republicans (which they are far from being) as far as the extreme Trans activists and their supporters are concerned.
We have gotten to the stage where the revolution is eating its own. Ironically, the whole gay “coming out” narrative is based upon a notion of essence and authenticity which is rejected by the Trans movement, which is about endless evolution, imagination and the will to become. My friends took courage from their determination to be “who they really were”—they are now on the cusp of becoming enemies of those who insist that we are whatever we identify as.
Similarly, the women’s movement has been severed from its connection to an embodied ontology and finds itself conceptually helpless on one hand to oppose male swimmers declaring themselves women and taking all the swimming prizes, and on the other hand paralyzed and unable to mount an effective campaign to oppose the reversal of Roe versus Wade because it is no longer possible to march under the banner of “Women’s Rights” in any meaningful way.
Our society is in the grip of out-of-control mimetic contagion, a very dangerous stage. The grave consequences were described by the late philosopher René Girard and are discussed with admirable clarity in a lecture posted this week by David Perell and Jonathan Bi. For those interested in only dipping their toe into the water until convinced of the relevance of Girard’s thought, listen to the last 20 minutes of this lecture about the new meaning of truth, love, innovation and violence.
My guess is you’ll want to listen to the whole lecture: https://youtu.be/5Qu6vBebwwg
“Ironically, the whole gay “coming out” narrative is based upon a notion of essence and authenticity which is rejected by the Trans movement, which is about endless evolution, imagination and the will to become. My friends took courage from their determination to be “who they really were”—they are now on the cusp of becoming enemies of those who insist that we are whatever we identify as.”
This quote perfectly shows the difference between the Trans movement and the LGB community. The Trans community doesn’t care what the LGB community thinks and care even less about women’s rights; they are pushing their own agenda while using them as a shield. I truly believe that if one were to peel the onion of the Trans scorched earth policies/activities, you’ll find that a relatively small group of progressive Marxist thugs are pushing it. It appears that Urvashi Vaid and her ilk have seized the narrative and like every thing the Progressives touch, will burn anything down that gets in their way.
I have been surprised at how anti-capitalism is so often paired with other activist issues, and how uncritically that premise is accepted.
Well said!
Most normal Americans never had a problem with gay rights. We simply accepted that gays had existed since time immemorial and that God intended as much. The notion that gayness was "sinful" was laughable. People simply are. Gay "marriage" and adoption rights took a bit longer but that was simply a process, aided by discussion.
I still struggle with gays “creating” babies and purposely denying that child a mother or father. We should strive for what’s in the best interest of children and I don’t think depriving a child of one or the other is in their best interest. People aren’t commodities.
Ironically, Leftists think adoption is evil--the commodifying of children. (Based on what I learned in a Woke class on this subject, that position is held chiefly to justify abortion.) But they don't say a word against homosexual couples adopting. I guess it's only "commodification" if the adoptive parents are married white heterosexuals.
Did you see the woman who tweeted she'd rather abort her babies then allow them to be adopted by white Christians?
Why do I feel like my head is going to explode. I don't think I can comprehend any of this anymore. I mean, can you even just imagine???
Was it a Black woman? And if so, was she aware she was being cheered by actual racists?
She would call herself Latinx
I did see that.
I don't struggle with this one at all. I'd much rather children be raised in a happy gay home than in an angry and miserable straight one. The sex of the parents is irrelevant to the child's "best interest." The attitude, love, and guidance from those parents is what matters.
Once you say "the sex of the parents is irrelevant", you have accepted the fundamental premise of trans activism: the interchangeability of male and female.
I agree that 2 parents are better than one, but let's not take the most optimistic homosexual family setting (wealthy, progressive, committed 10 years men) and compare it with the most depressing (single poor woman struggling to pay the bills.)
Given other constant variables, Mom & Dad are always better than Dad & Dad or Mom & Mom. And again, given constant other variables, biological parenthood is superior to adoptive. (I have 3 adopted kids myself, so I can say that.)
You're doing the same thing, though, Brian--presenting the most optimistic heterosexual family (straight, white, married, loving, law-abiding, committed, and financially secure) as the norm. In too many cases, it isn't. Good gay or trans parents are far better for children than rotten or evil straights.
No, the sexes are not interchangeable in family life, and I'm not a trans activist. In a perfect world, the traditional biological mom and dad model is better than any other. Having both genders in the house provides two different role models, masculine and feminine, which covers the waterfront for kids.
But when "ideal" parents are anything but--abusive, cruel, criminal, drug-addicted--I'd much rather kids be raised by adoptive parents, same-sex, trans, or anybody else. In those scenarios, the parents' sex is irrelevant--what counts far more is their behavior and ability to raise those children in a safe and loving home.
I think we're saying the same thing, aren't we?
I didn't mean to make you think I was accusing you of being an activist. Not my intention at all. Sorry.
I have been involved in the foster / adoptive world for decades, so I guess my perspective is colored by that. Having seen dozens of social workers remove kids from biological homes only to place them in even more dangerous foster environments, I am suspicious of the phrases "in the best interest of the child" and "ideal parents". There are no "ideal" parents; there are only flawed and sinful people struggling to figure out how to manage this tiny, irrational creature they chose to bring into their lives but which lacks an off button or an instruction manual. And short of a child's imminent bodily injury or death, I am VERY heavily biased toward the man and woman who crated that child.
Since the original commenter was talking about "creating" babies though, I'll step out on that as well and say that I believe commercial surrogacy is nothing but legalized baby buying and should be illegal. Women's eggs may be donated in love and carried in wombs in love, but buying eggs and renting wombs is wrong. And it matters not whether the prospective parent(s) is/are single/married or gay/straight/confused.
I think JT's comment is correct. Real longitudinal studies on the two environments would be useful, but are essentially impossible. Any such study would more likely reveal the experimenter's biases than the actual outcomes.
Weeeel, if You compare good parents of any particular persuasion against really *bad* heterosexual parents, then the answer is clear.
Me? I'd like to see some *un-biased* research on matched sets of parents. It'll never happen, of course.
I agree, except for there's no research to say that the sex of the parents is irrelevant.
Granted, people still don't recognize the research that, for the children, a two-parent home generally gives a better outcome, in most all respects, than a single-parent home. The two being mother and father.
Will there be non-biased research on gay parents? You probably know as well as I do, Sir William.
I dunno. *Nobody* knows what the effects will be long-term. Never came up in the discussion. I just worry, because 200,000 years is a lotta history to throw away. But mebbe it was time for a change. Dunno.
There is a support website out there for donor conceived children. Most are an unhappy lot. But it’s not about the kids, it’s what *I* want.
Most are? Is it a case of how a lotta adopted kids feel, or something deeper, I wonder? But, your probably right. It's probably a whole *lot* to do with what the parents want more than anything.
I think it’s not knowing where you came from. Adopted kids are not all donor conceived and many know their genetic history. My dad abandoned me when I was 7 but I know my history. I remember my dad, I know bits and pieces about his life and was called to take his body upon his death. To know absolutely nothing about from whence you came would be awful IMO.
Lol—I guess we’re going to find out!
Great article on this very concern:
https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/31/churches-that-bless-gay-marriage-victimize-children/
Dammit, Bruce, quit being so sane and inclusive. It annoys the social media gods, who demand fightin' words :-)
Just wait - I”ll revert to form.
That's probably a good description of where we are now. But as for history, well, almost everyone had a problem with gay rights, pretty much everywhere and forever until recent decades.
I'm not sure that's completely accurate, as historically, acceptance of gay people has waxed and waned. But you accurately described the way were were and now are.
Excellent, thoughtful comment making many good observations. Thank you for exposing me to the concept of mimetic contagion.
Thank you for your comment Alice. I hope you enjoy the Girard lecture--his thought is a profound key to understanding our time, and David Perell and Jonathan Bi have done a great job of discussing Girard's ideas with excellent clarity.
I wish I could watch the lecture. I just don't watch a video if it's more 'n 10 minutes. The time, is all.
Here’s the key 10 or 15 minutes when Jonathan Bi shows how mimetic desire has changed the meaning of love, truth, innovation and violence—if this grabs you, the rest of the lecture is probably worth the investment—and if not—you stayed within your 10 minute parameter: https://youtu.be/5Qu6vBebwwg?t=4177
Bless Your pointed li'l head, Sir! *Much* appreciated. Doesn't incline me to watch the whole video, but I did put "When These Things Begin" on list. TYTY again.
Free speech is THE defining issue of our times and the ultimate litmus test.
O, I miss archness. How on earth the freest generation raised the most Puritanical, whiny, intolerant generation is one for the history books right there. The other day I read a post on FB by a guy whose daughter is now a 'they' -- 'they' was SAD that comedians seem to "hate" people like "them" -- I so badly wanted to ARCHLY comment: TELL HER TO GROW A PAIR.
Isn't English the greatest of all languages?
It's very much like someone running onto an archery range, standing in front of a target and yelling "Why are they shooting at me!?? They must hate me!!"
Me too. I grew up around the theater and worked as a professional musician for 15 years. That archness is one of the qualities I loved most about my LGB friends. Well the ones that wanted to be known anyway.
Great read! The cancel culture needs to get cancelled.
Celia M below really stated what I was thinking... "Demand free speech until you have gained enough power to control the speech of others. Once you have that power, use it ruthlessly to silence all speech of which you do not approve."
This veteran's mind immediately diverts to over 90 American citizens(some veterans) who are held in solitary confinement for 23 hrs/day without due process(or sanitation) for 16 months now... for simply walking into their Capitol and taking pictures during their electoral process. But I digress...
For the normal homosexual people out there - yes, I consider you normal as it has been around since time began - please be aware that you are being used as a tool to obtain power and adjust accordingly.
Strongly agree. We have political prisoners in America. Shame
Yes. I wish Bari would print someone who discusses this.
D.28...as we live with the impostor in the WH, freeing criminals and wanting your gun...impolite.
This is so obvious to anyone with any sense of history. The American cultural and legal tradition is precisely what has enabled all these different people w diverse preferences and backgrounds to
Live together . For thousands of years homosexuality was thought to be a sin or a mental illness; slavery was accepted. Hearts and minds changed, why? Cause the people had freedom as enshrined in the bill of rights
MiFly...well pointed. thanks.
The gender-identity radicals are helping to sink the Democratic Party especially among liberal suburban voters. Parents don't want their 5 & 6 year-old children to be taught transgender sex education at such a young age. This school curriculum issue, along with CRT indoctrination, are killing the Democratic Party among moderate and Independent voters. Advice to radical Democratic woke activists: pay attention to Virginia and Florida parents/voters. Finally, dismiss their viewpoints as racist at your own political peril.
I tried to deliver this exact message to my close long time friend who works at a very high level of the DNC as a voter protection attorney. About two weeks ago we had a long discussion about this topic. In our conversation she revealed herself to be absolutely baffled as to why democratic candidates are polling so badly among moderate and independent voters. I told her that the situation going on with voters in Virginia and Florida just sums up the gist of the situation and if the Democratic Party strategists don’t confront that reality... we’ll, good luck with that. Her response was to immediately dismiss what I said as “right wing propaganda “. That’s always the response now, right? Just refer to anything that threatens your agenda as right wing nonsense. She told me that the only reason Terry McAuliffe lost the election in Virginia was because the DNC volunteers got lazy and just weren’t out “knocking on enough doors”. Good grief, I guess she actually believes that. I told her that from my perspective it just seems like for some bizarre reason the Democratic Party wants their candidates to lose in a very big way at the midterms and beyond.
"Knocking enough doors"? I thought it was all due to Russian disinformation? Or is that the previous election?
It’s called mass formation psychosis and it seems to be everywhere! Any Democrat like my sister (and your friend?) who cannot see that her party has collapsed into itself has her own identity problem. My hope is that eventually she will come to see how off-the-rails her party has become and either try to reform it from within or find something else to worship besides politics.
When this crap is inserted into the curriculum, what does it replace? Civics? American history?
Math. Reading.
"Civics? What's that?" would be the response of anyone out of grade school/high school after about...1985? or thereabouts.
I'm old enough to have gotten the "My country right or wrong! Rah-Rah-Rah U-S-A!!" version of "civics" and fought my teachers all the way.
"Why, when we 'make a country safe for democracy', do they always end up with some military guy in power who is dependent on our weapons to stay in power? I'm gonna reject coincidence here."
Got in some trouble, but not a lot. The other kids liked having someone derail the lessons and distract the teacher and the teachers mostly liked having someone, ANYONE, who was interested enough to engage. But they don't teach 'civics' any more.
That's my hope. And hopefully they'll make their will known at the ballot box.
Dunno that's enough to stop the insanity, tho. And there's not enough people who are in a position to risk their livelihoods and protest against this crap. Protest as vehemently as it requires. IMO.
Great article! I wasn't aware of Reagan's role in stopping Prop 6. I am glad he stuck to his libertarian principles.
As a gay man, I'm going to be civil and friendly to my neighbors whose views are similar to mine, and ESPECIALLY to those who don't like gay people (as long as they're not violent towards me or destructive of my property, which I won't tolerate) because I hope that, over time, they'll see me and my partner as just neighbors going about our lives and not having any "agenda" other than to live in peace. They'll hopefully see we're helpful, civic minded, have no desire to "convert" their kids, and will help them in times of need despite our different views. I'll answer their questions rather than snubbing them, even the ridiculous ones I've been asked like "which one of you is the wife."
I was (I think) able to change at least one person's mind. A woman I know at work said "I don't care what you do but you should stay in the closet." My reply was: "Which is more harmful--two guys living together of their own free will or a guy pretending to be straight, marrying a woman and then her life is miserable because he's always got a big secret." Same woman said "why do you flaunt it" when she saw my partner's photo on my desk. My reply: "Do you keep your husband's photo on your desk to flaunt it, or because seeing him during the day makes you happy at work?" If I had just written her off as a homophobe, that's what she'd still be. While we're certainly not friends, we do get along now.
It really disturbs me how so many people attack those who are generally supportive just because their views don't align 100%. There are much better battles to fight.
I'm glad you were able to address her calmly and with kindness. Few could say the same when some of her comments are not as kind!
That's where ya gotta start, though. Meet people where they are and 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑤 them their conclusions are in error. She never rationally thought herself to the conclusion that gays were bad, so argument is not recommended as a tactic.
Going back to the column from last week about raising sheep:
Parenting has become, for some reason I cannot understand other than selfishness, centered on protecting children from harm instead of teaching them how to navigate harm: hopefully avoiding it but if not handling it. It's almost as if parents have been trained that their worth is in being the bubble around the child instead of the teacher of the child.
For the last 20 years, maybe longer, so many children grew up with a near complete absence of "feeling bad" because parents shielded them (and because we have lived, in the US, in an era of unknown peace and prosperity). Now, as adults, when their parents can no longer protect them, when they "feel bad" they assume the problem is outside of themselves and the only way to "feel good" is to squash whatever makes them "feel bad". Like a very young child, they only thing they know how to do is throw a temper tantrum.
Outstanding view, Neil--centered on protecting children from harm instead of teaching them how to deal with it.
Much better to teach kids how to not fall off their bikes and skin up their knees--or, if they do, how to put on the Bactine and bandages so they heal--then to scream at the city council about how highways need to be bouncy-house soft because My Child.
Life throws challenges, both good and evil, at us all the time. Kids are better of learning how to duck, dodge, weave, comply, resist, and/or counterattack than insist the lightning should not have struck. Lightening doesn't care if you yell at it.
Adults should be able to live their lives as they prefer, as long as they don’t infringe on other citizens rights. I am allowed to believe and say what I think of those behaviors. They are trying to bully my beliefs out of existence.