As Transgenderism Becomes the Next Big Thing, Let’s Remember What Sexual Revolutionaries Used to Believe

 

shutterstock_336552080The cultural revolution spearheaded by the Left didn’t end after Obergefell (not that anyone expected it to). While polyamory is very likely to be one of its next phases, the next two big steps — both presently ongoing — appear to be the replacement of religious liberty as a social right with freedom of worship as a private right and the transgenderism revolution. This is a big deal and worth our attention. As Maggie Gallagher reports in National Review:

New York’s Andrew Cuomo, and the governors of four other states, are banning official travel to Mississippi.

Charles Barkley is asking the NBA to take the All-Star Game away from North Carolina. PayPal is cancelling plans to expand there. And more than 100 corporations are attacking North Carolina over a bill protecting women from having to share bathrooms with transgender biological males.

Meanwhile the president’s administration has unilaterally redefined the gender-discrimination provisions of Title IX so that its rules forbidding gender discrimination now forbid “LGBT discrimination.” Meaning: Your daughter must shower with transgender biological males or else her school district will lose all federal funding.

Before we are all shoved into this brave, new, crazy world, let’s take a glance backward.

There used to be a fundamental moral principle on which the proponents of each successive wave of the permanent sexual revolution would rely: You have the right to engage in whatever sexual activity (or take up any sexual lifestyle) you like, so long as you don’t hurt anyone else or violate another’s rights.

This is the principle I formerly called “sexual libertarianism.” Later I called it “sexual libertinism.” In between I called it “sexual narfblarism,” which was by far the funnest term. (Follow that link to locate my reasons for modifying my terminology.)

Anyway, there was a time when it seemed that sexual revolutionaries actually believed that principle. Back then, we could all agree that women and girls have a right to not encounter male genitalia in their restrooms and locker rooms, and to not be seen in these settings by anyone with male genitalia (at least not without consent).

But with the transgenderism revolution, the same movement that used to trumpet that principle is now turning against it–the rights of those women and girls are now subordinate to the rights of certain others to adopt whatever lifestyle they want.

Why?

My guess is that many in the movement never believed it anyway. It was just convenient to their revolution. But I’m open to better explanations.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 188 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    Umbra Fractus:

    Miffed White Male: So you’re saying unilateral disarmament will be an effective tactic.

    Yes. SoCons should just sit down and let society be torn down brick by brick because fighting back might look bad.

    If you’re happy fighting with the straw-cisman, don’t let me get in the way, fellers.

    • #181
  2. Trink Coolidge
    Trink
    @Trink

    RightAngles: No, they have to make a federal case out of everything so they can indulge in their moral exhibitionism. This time, they’re codifying the possibility of perverts of many stripes to prey on women and little girls, all in the name of “open-mindedness.” Let’s not be so open-minded that our brains fall out. And let’s have a smidge of compassion for all the girls who will be permanently scarred by these encounters.

    I’m saving this paragraph Right Angles!

    • #182
  3. Lily Bart Inactive
    Lily Bart
    @LilyBart

    Trink:

    RightAngles: No, they have to make a federal case out of everything so they can indulge in their moral exhibitionism. This time, they’re codifying the possibility of perverts of many stripes to prey on women and little girls, all in the name of “open-mindedness.” Let’s not be so open-minded that our brains fall out. And let’s have a smidge of compassion for all the girls who will be permanently scarred by these encounters.

    I’m saving this paragraph Right Angles!

    I agree!

    • #183
  4. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    Lily Bart:

    Trink:

    RightAngles: No, they have to make a federal case out of everything so they can indulge in their moral exhibitionism. This time, they’re codifying the possibility of perverts of many stripes to prey on women and little girls, all in the name of “open-mindedness.” Let’s not be so open-minded that our brains fall out. And let’s have a smidge of compassion for all the girls who will be permanently scarred by these encounters.

    I’m saving this paragraph Right Angles!

    I agree!

    Thanks, guys, and the beauty part is they do this for everything, so you can also use it for assisted suicide and many other issues of the day.

    • #184
  5. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Kate Braestrup:

    Saint Augustine:

    Umbra Fractus:

    Saint Augustine:

    Kate Braestrup:

    I agree with this—and with much of what the rest of you have said in this thread too; I just don’t think (over?) reacting with yet more laws is the answer.

    If I had time to study the actual content and import of such laws it’s conceivable I’d agree. What bothers me is the laws from the other side–the Houston one, for example.

    What bothers me is the insistence that by opposing the laws from the other side to the point of repealing them, somehow we’re the ones making an issue out of it.

    Yeah, the Left pretty much always starts these things, and treats any defensive move from the Right as cruel aggression.

    I’m not saying it’s always a bad idea to counter bad law with more (hopefully better) law, or bad city ordinance with (hopefully better) state law; I’m arguing that in this particular case, it was unnecessary and counterproductive, especially since . . . .

    Well, I won’t argue with you there.  I withhold agreement, but I sure don’t have the knowledge or time (or, these days, the health) to disagree.

    • #185
  6. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Kate Braestrup:

    Umbra Fractus: I’m sorry if I sound like a broken record here, but SoCons did not pick this fight!

    Okay, but why are SoCons allowing SoProgs to take the top slot(s), rent-free, on the conservative agenda?

    For the same reasons the Allies allowed the Axis powers to be at the top of the agenda.  We were attacked–at home, and with a view to our defeat and possibly extermination.

    . . . and one doesn’t have to react to every provocation with a counter-provocation, and one doesn’t have to use law to do it.

    Well, that is true.

    • #186
  7. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Guruforhire:Because all comedy is conservative.

    Strangely, my mind is inclined to thinking that about the horror genre.

    • #187
  8. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Kate Braestrup:

    Choosing when to use the weapon is not the same as disarming. Sometimes it’s smarter to wait until you can see the whites of their eyes…and then take careful aim.

    How would this literally accurate point about war correctly translate to an accurate point about a metaphorical culture war?

    EDIT: Or I could quote Romans 12: “On the contrary;if your enemy is hungry, feed him/her, if she/he is thirsty, give him/her something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his/her head.”

    . . . .

    “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

    Again, how does this translate into the context of cultural war?  It’s true enough, being the Word of God.  But why it should be taken to mean cultural or legal pacifism is beyond me.

    • #188
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.