Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Made to Care: The Illiberality of LGBT Politics

 

The subtitle to this piece could have been: We Told You So.

We marriage defenders said, “You can either have religious freedom/freedom of conscience or same-sex ‘marriage,’ but not both.” You may be asking, “Why is she bringing that up again? Does she want to restart the SSM wars?” It’s because the Culture Wars are back in the news, and not just in the US, but throughout “advanced” (beyond the truth) societies of the West.

Here at home, the Colorado baker is going to have his day at the Supreme Court. It only remains to be seen if Justice Anthony “Obergefell” Kennedy will decide in favor of the First Amendment or his own misguided redefinition of marriage. Even if he decides the baker gets to keep his freedom of conscience, he may do so on very narrow grounds that the baker has freedom of “creative expression” as an artist, and not so much freedom of association as implicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment.

And then there’s Rocklin Academy. Even kindergartners must be made to conform to the ascendant transgender confusion. Their teacher read I am Jazz and Red: A Crayon’s Story before the big reveal of their classmate as a trans-girl. Neither the teacher nor the administration thought it important to inform the students’ parents before teaching the kids that blue is red, or boys can be girls, if they feel like it. Notice a trend here?

LGBT politics isn’t about “marriage equality” or transgender rights. It is an attack on objective truth and an empowerment of authorities at all levels to coerce speech and thought. Marriage has always been a legitimization of male/female conjugal unions because it is in the interests of individuals and society to attach the naturally occurring offspring of such unions to their parents in family units. That was widely understood as the truth of marriage – the accepted social reality. Up until Obergefell (and, leading up to it, gay adoption), we, as individuals and as a society, were allowed to remain indifferent to naturally sterile relationships between homosexuals. No more. We are being forced to care.

It’s the same with the minuscule fraction of people with gender dysphoria. While their condition is tragic for these individuals and the people who love them, their impact on society was negligible until now. Now laws are being passed to compel speech in the form of “preferred pronouns” (ref: Jordan Peterson, Canada), and children are having their world turned upside down by the revision of what is so obviously true: a person with a penis (and XY chromosomes) is a boy, and a person without a penis (and XX chromosomes) is a girl. One might even say, “it’s science!”

These are just isolated anecdotes, you say? Ha! Let’s look at what happens when a nation caves to the LGBT agenda.

In Great Britain, the slide into unreality moves apace. The “Ministry of Equality” has expressed support for a proposal to allow gender reassignment surgery without any medical consultation as building on the “progress” of same-sex “marriage.” Also from an “equalities” minister: “I feel we’ll only have proper equal marriage when you can bloody well get married in a church if you want to do so, without having to fight the church for the equality that should be your right.” The leader of the Liberal Democrats was forced to resign despite voting for SSM, because his Christian belief that marriage is between a man and a woman is intolerable in politics and must be publicly denounced. Further, Christians are being excluded from foster parenting because, “The equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence.” You can’t make this shtuff up. So now homosexual couples will be able to foster and adopt, but people of religious conviction won’t. “Family” is now anything but a man and a woman loving their children in a faith-filled home.

We live in such stupid times.

There are 395 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. drlorentz Member
    drlorentz Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Western Chauvinist: “Ministry of Equality”

    Dare I say it? Sure, why not.

    Orwellian. MiniSame.

    • #1
    • September 21, 2017, at 10:16 AM PDT
    • 14 likes
  2. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist: “Ministry of Equality”

    Dare I say it? Sure, why not.

    Orwellian. MiniSame.

    It is incredible, isn’t it? The man was a prophet (of doom).

    • #2
    • September 21, 2017, at 10:18 AM PDT
    • 9 likes
  3. DocJay Inactive

    I was born in the wrong time.

    • #3
    • September 21, 2017, at 10:19 AM PDT
    • 15 likes
  4. Bob Wainwright Member

    I’ve never understood the preferred pronouns thing. The only English pronouns that have gender associated with them are the third-person pronouns “he” and “she”.

    If I am speaking directly to a transgender person I have to say “you” which he/she couldn’t object to because it isn’t gender specific.

    It’s only when I’m speaking to someone else about the transgender person that I would use “he” or “she”.

    So these penalties that we hear about which apply to using the non-preferred pronoun must necessarily apply to conversations to which the aggrieved transgender person isn’t even a party. Or which maybe he or she overhears but which are still a conversation between two other people. Am I understanding this correctly?

    • #4
    • September 21, 2017, at 10:29 AM PDT
    • 18 likes
  5. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Bob Wainwright (View Comment):
    I’ve never understood the preferred pronouns thing. The only English pronouns that have gender associated with them are the third-person pronouns “he” and “she”.

    If I am speaking directly to a transgender person I have to say “you” which he/she couldn’t object to because it isn’t gender specific.

    It’s only when I’m speaking to someone else about the transgender person that I would use “he” or “she”.

    So these penalties that we hear about which apply to using the non-preferred pronoun must necessarily apply to conversations to which the aggrieved transgender person isn’t even a party. Or which maybe he or she overhears but which are still a conversation between two other people. Am I understanding this correctly?

    Perfectly.

    • #5
    • September 21, 2017, at 10:34 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  6. Bob Wainwright Member

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Bob Wainwright (View Comment):
    I’ve never understood the preferred pronouns thing. The only English pronouns that have gender associated with them are the third-person pronouns “he” and “she”.

    If I am speaking directly to a transgender person I have to say “you” which he/she couldn’t object to because it isn’t gender specific.

    It’s only when I’m speaking to someone else about the transgender person that I would use “he” or “she”.

    So these penalties that we hear about which apply to using the non-preferred pronoun must necessarily apply to conversations to which the aggrieved transgender person isn’t even a party. Or which maybe he or she overhears but which are still a conversation between two other people. Am I understanding this correctly?

    Perfectly.

    So Kaitlyn Jenner finds out that I called her a “he” to someone, and he reports me and I’m guilty of some kind of crime? Even though I never even spoke to him? What if he found out I called her a poopyhead?

    • #6
    • September 21, 2017, at 10:37 AM PDT
    • 19 likes
  7. Bob Wainwright Member

    Bob Wainwright (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Bob Wainwright (View Comment):
    I’ve never understood the preferred pronouns thing. The only English pronouns that have gender associated with them are the third-person pronouns “he” and “she”.

    If I am speaking directly to a transgender person I have to say “you” which he/she couldn’t object to because it isn’t gender specific.

    It’s only when I’m speaking to someone else about the transgender person that I would use “he” or “she”.

    So these penalties that we hear about which apply to using the non-preferred pronoun must necessarily apply to conversations to which the aggrieved transgender person isn’t even a party. Or which maybe he or she overhears but which are still a conversation between two other people. Am I understanding this correctly?

    Perfectly.

    So Kaitlyn Jenner finds out that I called her a “he” to someone, and he reports me and I’m guilty of some kind of crime? Even though I never even spoke to him? What if she found out I called her a poopyhead?

    • #7
    • September 21, 2017, at 10:38 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  8. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Bob Wainwright (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Bob Wainwright (View Comment):
    I’ve never understood the preferred pronouns thing. The only English pronouns that have gender associated with them are the third-person pronouns “he” and “she”.

    If I am speaking directly to a transgender person I have to say “you” which he/she couldn’t object to because it isn’t gender specific.

    It’s only when I’m speaking to someone else about the transgender person that I would use “he” or “she”.

    So these penalties that we hear about which apply to using the non-preferred pronoun must necessarily apply to conversations to which the aggrieved transgender person isn’t even a party. Or which maybe he or she overhears but which are still a conversation between two other people. Am I understanding this correctly?

    Perfectly.

    So Kaitlyn Jenner finds out that I called her a “he” to someone, and he reports me and I’m guilty of some kind of crime? Even though I never even spoke to him? What if he found out I called her a poopyhead?

    I believe Jenner votes Republican, which means you can call him anything you want.

    • #8
    • September 21, 2017, at 10:41 AM PDT
    • 14 likes
  9. Hoyacon Member

    Having come to terms (evolved!) with regard to SSM, I’m distressed to notice that the LGBT movement, like the left of which they are a part, never really “stops,” but just keeps moving on to the next issue–transgenderism being the most notable now. It’s natural that acceptance by the general population will come first on the more “acceptable” matters, but then, having run out of smaller rivers to cross, it appears inevitable that the always-present activists will try to cross really controversial divides. It’s in the nature of ideologues who lead movements to always find the next “injustice,” and it appears that those, such as myself, who hoped resolution of the SSM issue would lead to reconciliation, were naïve.

    As an aside, where is the great book on the LGBT movement, with an unvarnished look at its tactics and its leaders?

    • #9
    • September 21, 2017, at 11:13 AM PDT
    • 13 likes
  10. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    It’s in the nature of ideologues who lead movements to always find the next “injustice,” and it appears that those, such as myself, who hoped resolution of the SSM issue would lead to reconciliation, were very naïve.

    Indeed. See subtitle.

    I appreciate you owning it, though, H.

    • #10
    • September 21, 2017, at 11:21 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  11. Trink Coolidge
    Trink Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    I honestly didn’t know it’d gone this far. Insane.

    ” . . . a teacher read her kindergarten class picture books about transgenderism to affirm a gender dysphoric classmate. During the class, parents say, the gender dysphoric boy also switched clothes to look more like a girl in a “gender reveal.”

    • #11
    • September 21, 2017, at 11:35 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  12. Nick H Coolidge

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    I’m distressed to notice that the LGBT movement, like the left of which they are a part, never really “stop,” but just keep moving on to the next issue–transgenderism being the most notable now.

    Yep. Which is why they always try to disparage the “slippery slope” arguments. For them the slippery slope is a feature, not a bug.

    On a related note, I can understand why transgender advocates want to attach themselves to the lesbian/gay/bi part of the movement. It’s hard not to have questions about your sexuality if you don’t know your own gender. But it’s really not the same issue. If your sexuality is not a choice but something inherent in your genes, then your gender shouldn’t be a choice either. Plus I’m sure that there are many people out there who are perfectly fine with same sex marriage but don’t agree that biological sex is irrelevant and that boys can be girls or vice-versa. I would think that causes some tension in the movement, but I haven’t seen any signs of it.

    • #12
    • September 21, 2017, at 11:37 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  13. MarciN Member

    This relentless striking at people who disagree with them was somewhat predictable in that the gay rights movement was fashioned on the civil rights movement–in fact, they began at the same time but the gay rights movement took a back seat for a while. It was the AIDS epidemic that pushed the gay rights movement to the forefront, and it also generated a lot of political action cash.

    Like the civil rights movement, it took on a life of its own. Nonprofits were set up that persist to this day, and their unstated mission is to survive financially. Drumming up publicity for “injustices” means money in their nonprofit coffers to pay their directors’ salaries.

    The laws surrounding the incorporation of nonprofits stipulate that the nonprofit have a specific purpose and that when that purpose has been met, the nonprofit be dissolved. Unfortunately, the state governments do not enforce this (the IRS tries to watch for this in their 501 C 3 accounting audits) because they either don’t want to or don’t have the personnel.

    The result, which the creators of the nonprofit laws anticipated, is that there are a lot of organizations that exist that are in search of a mission or are engaging in constantly expanding their original mission.

    When politicians get brought into the mix, they seize on the votes they get by pandering to these nonprofits’ “causes.”

    That these groups would persist and that they would continue to harass people was inevitable.

    • #13
    • September 21, 2017, at 11:42 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  14. I Walton Member

    How did we get here? Slime flows down hill so slopes always get slipperier. If one doesn’t stand for principle when the principle seems a little judgmental and self righteous, you lose. Doesn’t seem fair, but that’s why those principles, mores and notions of good and bad evolved and took hold in the first place.

    • #14
    • September 21, 2017, at 11:45 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  15. Robert McReynolds Inactive

    Yes the blame for all of this lays at feet of those who told us not to fight, that the tide was against us (despite homosexual marriage having won only a few ballot initiatives), and that if we just let it go we could focus on more important things. They are telling us the same thing about transgenders using the bathroom with which they “identify.”

    • #15
    • September 21, 2017, at 11:51 AM PDT
    • 16 likes
  16. Ed G. Member
    Ed G. Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    DocJay (View Comment):
    I was born in the wrong time.

    Yeah, me too. Maybe I’d go for 1875. Or 1790. Or 1820.

    • #16
    • September 21, 2017, at 11:52 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  17. Robert McReynolds Inactive

    I Walton (View Comment):
    How did we get here? Slime flows down hill so slopes always get slipperier. If one doesn’t stand for principle when the principle seems a little judgmental and self righteous, you lose. Doesn’t seem fair, but that’s why those principles, mores and notions of good and bad evolved and took hold in the first place.

    How? By the same people who claim to stand on principle and yet give us Leftist policies whenever we aren’t looking. We got here by our political and social leaders abandoning the field because they didn’t want The NY Times and the WaPo calling them names

    • #17
    • September 21, 2017, at 11:53 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  18. Ed G. Member
    Ed G. Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    It’s in the nature of ideologues who lead movements to always find the next “injustice,” and it appears that those, such as myself, who hoped resolution of the SSM issue would lead to reconciliation, were very naïve.

    Indeed. See subtitle.

    I appreciate you owning, though, H.

    I appreciate it too, Hoyacon. But no need to self flagellate; your strategy made some sense. I think my faith proposition still holds true though: the underlying realities will reassert themselves in the form of need looking for solution and something like traditional marriage will step back in to fill the void. Unfortunately it could take some time and tragic suffering before that happens.

    • #18
    • September 21, 2017, at 11:59 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  19. Scott Wilmot Member

    Western Chauvinist: It is an attack on objective truth and an empowerment of authorities at all levels to coerce speech and thought.

    And I am sad to say that this same attack on truth is happening in the Church, brought to us most prominently by Fr. James Martin, SJ. As Phil Lawler writes:

    See if you recognize this rhetorical strategy:

    • Say that the people who disagree with you are motivated by hatred.
    • Say that they’re dangerous extremists, a threat to civil society.
    • Say that you are interested in genuine debate, but your opponents won’t allow it.
    • Compare your opponents to Nazis.
    • Insist that responsible people must disavow any connection with your opponents.

    And then…

    • Say that your opponents are intolerant.

    It’s a clever technique: a campaign of intolerance, camouflaged as a plea for tolerance. And it’s picking up steam in the Catholic media.

    The focus of the campaign is Father James Martin, the popular Jesuit, who has written a book questioning the Church’s stance on homosexuality. Father Martin insists that he has not contradicted the Church’s formal teachings, and deeply resents those who suggest otherwise. His critics observe that Father Martin cannot bring himself to repeat the Catechism’s statement that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered,” or the injunction that homosexual persons are called to chastity.

    Lawler concludes that:

    The rhetorical strategy is working. One side is effectively doing what it charges the other side with trying to do: shutting down debate.

    • #19
    • September 21, 2017, at 11:59 AM PDT
    • 9 likes
  20. Robert McReynolds Inactive

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    DocJay (View Comment):
    I was born in the wrong time.

    Yeah, me too. Maybe I’d go for 1875. Or 1790. Or 1820.

    1900 that way you are hitting your stride as an adult right when the roaring 20s rolls around.

    • #20
    • September 21, 2017, at 12:10 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  21. Robert McReynolds Inactive

    Also you still get automobiles and the ladies dresses are short. ?

    • #21
    • September 21, 2017, at 12:11 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  22. tigerlily Member

    Great post WC!

    • #22
    • September 21, 2017, at 12:18 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  23. DrewInWisconsin, Ham-Fisted Bu… Coolidge

    Nick H (View Comment):

    On a related note, I can understand why transgender advocates want to attach themselves to the lesbian/gay/bi part of the movement. It’s hard not to have questions about your sexuality if you don’t know your own gender. But it’s really not the same issue. If your sexuality is not a choice but something inherent in your genes, then your gender shouldn’t be a choice either. Plus I’m sure that there are many people out there who are perfectly fine with same sex marriage but don’t agree that biological sex is irrelevant and that boys can be girls or vice-versa. I would think that causes some tension in the movement, but I haven’t seen any signs of it.

    I seem to recall a piece at The Federalist addressing this very subject: that the “T” part is so fundamentally different from the “LGB” part that they don’t belong together.

    • #23
    • September 21, 2017, at 12:25 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  24. Clavius Thatcher

    Western Chauvinist: LGBT politics isn’t about “marriage equality” or transgender rights. It is an attack on objective truth and an empowerment of authorities at all levels to coerce speech and thought.

    You are spot on with this statement. Once you can define truth you can control everyone. That is the goal.

    • #24
    • September 21, 2017, at 12:41 PM PDT
    • 8 likes
  25. Mike Rapkoch Moderator

    On a lighter note, Mark Steyn has come up with the best line in the whole debate: “Trannish Inquisition.”

    • #25
    • September 21, 2017, at 12:41 PM PDT
    • 19 likes
  26. Bob Wainwright Member

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Nick H (View Comment):

    On a related note, I can understand why transgender advocates want to attach themselves to the lesbian/gay/bi part of the movement. It’s hard not to have questions about your sexuality if you don’t know your own gender. But it’s really not the same issue. If your sexuality is not a choice but something inherent in your genes, then your gender shouldn’t be a choice either. Plus I’m sure that there are many people out there who are perfectly fine with same sex marriage but don’t agree that biological sex is irrelevant and that boys can be girls or vice-versa. I would think that causes some tension in the movement, but I haven’t seen any signs of it.

    I seem to recall a piece at The Federalist addressing this very subject: that the “T” part is so fundamentally different from the “LGB” part that they don’t belong together.

    Back when Renee Richards came out as transsexual, it was still believed, evidently even by him/her, that your gender identity wasn’t a choice. He became a woman because that’s what he “really” was in some way. This implied that being transsexual was a birth defect that had to be fixed by surgery and hormone treatments. At some point I guess the left decided they didn’t like that implication. So now it’s a choice.

    • #26
    • September 21, 2017, at 12:43 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  27. Clavius Thatcher

    And I am sorry, but if you are biologically male and believe you are female (or vise versa) you are mentally ill.

    • #27
    • September 21, 2017, at 12:45 PM PDT
    • 20 likes
  28. Ed G. Member
    Ed G. Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Robert McReynolds (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    DocJay (View Comment):
    I was born in the wrong time.

    Yeah, me too. Maybe I’d go for 1875. Or 1790. Or 1820.

    1900 that way you are hitting your stride as an adult right when the roaring 20s rolls around.

    Nah, I doubt I would have bucked prohibition so I don’t think I would have enjoyed it very much. I would have been part of the disaffected lamenting the nihilism, hedonism, commercialism, and most importantly the superficialism.

    • #28
    • September 21, 2017, at 12:49 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  29. Dorrk Member

    There are issues worth fighting and issues that aren’t. What some confused person wants to do or call themselves doesn’t bother me until they begin encroaching on my own autonomy. I’m perfectly willing, like Jordan Peterson, to fight for my own right to call whomever whatever I want and only bake cakes that I want to bake (disclosure: I have never baked a cake); the things that come before that, which are personal decisions, do not concern me.

    I’m confident that, even though gender/sexuality activists will try to overreach into thought policing and free speech restrictions, they will not succeed. That’s the start of the slope. The rest of it is none of my business.

    • #29
    • September 21, 2017, at 1:31 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  30. Stina Member

    Clavius (View Comment):
    And I am sorry, but if you are biologically male and believe you are female (or vise versa) you are mentally ill.

    I thought psychologists were supposed to be trained to know the difference between genetic and psychological problems. Psychological might need pharmaceuticals, but counseling should be part of it.

    I can tell psychological counseling is completely off the rails when young pubescents are being given a green light on transition.

    Serious question – how many of you felt comfortable in your own body when you were going through puberty? Its awkward and uncomfortable enough without this layer on top. I feel really sorry for our youth. And these psychologists should know this.

    • #30
    • September 21, 2017, at 2:23 PM PDT
    • 5 likes

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.