Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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.
Published in Culture
But the concern expressed is probably a bit more than the product of a “few people’s fevered imaginations.”
Absolutely!
Fair enough. When I said that I admit I was unaware that anybody had passed such an intrusive law.
No, that’s a matter of opinion, and is not “undeniable.” I appreciate you finding the ordinance, but the EEOC, for one, has already weighed in on this issue and found the failure to use a preferred pronoun to be harassment if sufficiently pervasive. The New York ordinance extends the harassment motif, and, while I’m assuming that you’re suggesting it has First Amendment issues, that’s an unlitigated opinion, not one to be asserted with such certainty. The ordinance–civil though it is–is IMO close enough to the concept that you tried to dispute earlier.
Wow, I don’t really think you need be so defensive. You know me, Tom. I’m just having a little fun throwing an elbow. Did you read the rest of the post or just the subheading?
I have no interest in calling in a debt. I knew when the bet was made the payout was worthless. I know you’re good people with good intentions who believed we could re-engineer the most basic human institution which guards our liberty — the family. You were wrong then and it’s too late for us now. You were always, at best, unreliable allies in the fight against the Left.
I’m with Ed(?). I think things will play out naturally from here. Meaning normal marriage and true compassion (for gender dysphorics) will win out in the end. But, not before some major societal upheaval.
And for those who scoff at my doomsaying, just be glad you’re not a Christian baker and your kid isn’t in kindergarten at Rocklin Elementary. For those people, the upheaval is already here.
I was referring to the courts, not the Obama EEOC, about whose opinion I have no doubt. I acknowledged that it was unlitigated, but I remain in little doubt about the outcome when it is litigated. And yes, the problems are First Amendment ones.
That would be the same “true compassion” that gays and transgendered individuals have enjoyed for so long at the hands of traditionalists?
Why should I be embarrassed? The statistics are widely known that transgenders commit suicude at extremely high rates even after finding supportive community and transitioning.
And no one is counseling these people. To even question whether transition is the right call is not acceptable in the counseling and psychology departments. We had one guy go from dating a girl to transitioning in 6 months after seeing a therapist. He had overbearing parents. Think maybe there needed to be family counseling before transitioning? But no. It came out of the blue and hit like a tidal wave.
Meh, Cato, again with the facts and actual history…
Point taken about the Obama EEOC, but you have greater faith in the wisdom of the New York judiciary and federal district courts than I. Both operate more in the realm of politics and this is politics.
Happy is good, Cato, but this seemed sort of “in your face” and heavy-handed, to me…Good to see you, btw.
This is the problem with imputing bigotry and ill-will based on disagreement over issues. You’ve already labeled me:
What incentive do I have to submit to your language policing? I am liberated.
Also, I have a friend whose brother is schizophrenic and lives in a half-way house. My friend volunteered for years at the “nut house” before becoming the co-director. He could have been a humorless scold, but he wasn’t. Ahem.
We really need to learn to laugh at ourselves and the absurdity of life. What else you gonna do, cry?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/transgender-high-school-locker-room_us_56387949e4b00a4d2e0bb825
This is reason #4,712 why my kids will never go to government school.
True! I use ‘ nigger’ all the time and people just assume I’m racist.
So! Unfair!!
I can accept that, but I hope you see how it was read as much more than a friendly ribbing.
I read the rest and agreed with much of it.
I think you’re good people, too, and we’re in agreement on most of the issues you describe in your post. Same principles, same enemies.
That’s why I find the go-suck-a-lemon attitude so perplexing.
It’ll be a question for the federal courts ultimately, not the states. And there are courts above the district level. Keep the faith. The federal judiciary has been rock solid on speech rights as a whole, even if there are some rogues in the lower courts.
How about we drop the “trannies” term and the accusations of bigotry?
You are changing the subject. I did not say that I would be subject to criminal sanctions, only that they demand it. However, in many places, I could face criminal sanctions. The UK. Canada. New York City. California if a new bill passes (and who in California would dare vote against a pro-trans bill just because it’s an overbearing and stupid attempt to control thought and words?) Under local hate crime ordinances all over the country, “misgendering” can result in finding yourself facing a human rights kangaroo court, or accused of a hate crime. A hypothetical assertion that a guy in a dress is not really a woman could land you in the same place, because it could be interpreted as creating a hostile environment for guys in dresses.
On a college campus, a student would likely face an investigation by the Title IX office — I know that’s not a criminal sanction, but it’s not for lack of trying by the trans activists. And in some ways it is worse — you can kill someone and later get accepted to Harvard, but try finishing your education anywhere, even a local community college, with a Title IX disciplinary violation on your transcript.
My main point, however, was that the people who dictate the language I must use, and threaten me for disagreeing, are the uncivil ones.
Really? That’s an equivalent? I mean, blacks use it on each other a lot! And some gays like to call themselves “queer.” I think a lot of people are looking to be offended. I’m done playing that game.
My statement was a truth (meant to be funny) about real women hating pantyhose and trans-women seeming to looooove them, if Jenner is any indication. In fairness, though, he could have been wearing a garter belt to hold up his hose on those magazine covers. I’m sure that’s much more comfortable…
Spoken like a straight person. The straight version of this is the storyline of about 70% of everything that’s ever come out of Hollywood, and the theme of half the shows on TV. You probably don’t notice it because it’s so pervasive it’s part of the woodwork, but it’s everywhere. A short film with a little “boy meets boy” instead of the standard “boy meets girl” isn’t “in your face” or “heavy handed.” It’s just a tiny bit of still totally unequal time.
Did you watch the film? There’s nothing sexual about it. There’s nothing political about it. Frankly, it’s sweet. If that film is “in your face” and “heavy handed” – can you explain to me how it’s possible to have a same sex relationship at all without facing that criticism?
It really is.
I know black people use that n word. Transsexuals use the other word too.
Whether you (or I) should use either in civil discourse is a matter for our consciences, I guess.
I’ll just note that that’s pre-election and give you the now standard “that’s how you get Trump.” The Obama DOJ did really jump the shark on the bathroom thing. I think you can be respectful of transgendered people and still feel it’s appropriate to segregate public bathrooms by genital type, or that some other accommodation should be made for transgendered people simply because everybody’s feelings on the subject should count.
That’s a long and winding road, CR, and also assumes that someone will have the will to litigate. It’s not a perfect analogy, but, AFAIK, the EEOC’s determination that “sex”=”sexual orientation” has not been challenged/overturned (although I recognize you may agree with that). You’re probably also aware that harassment is a very tricky area, and often delves into the (subjective) feelings of the alleged harassee. The manner in which one may address any number of protected groups is already controlled (and often justifiably so), so I see little reason why we can’t go here.
I understand your point about civil discourse (and agree) but don’t often agree with attempts to analogize racism with other ‘isms” and “phobias.” If I wanted to piggy back my movement on the most egregious examples of bigotry (i.e., race-based) in this country, I’d probably go there, but simply because an interested party tries to create an equivalency doesn’t mean there is one.
On the “sex = sexual orientation” question I’m going to plead guilty to actually having had a hand in making that law 20ish years ago in a case called Nabozny v. Podlesny. It was a case about forcing schools to take anti-gay bullying seriously, and it’s a cause I would happy still stand for and a result I am proud of. Moreover the defendant was a public school – a state actor – and so I have no second thoughts about having sued it for anti-gay discrimination. But the de facto extension – that was one of the consequences – of private sector anti-discrimination law to another group of plaintiffs is surely to be regretted. Unintended consequences. Always unintended consequences.
Yeah, I did watch it, some time ago…I freely admit to my opposite-sex attraction…That’s not what prompted me to find it a bit heavy-handed: The prelude to bullying (crowd) in the hall; the furtiveness…It doesn’t have to be that way, does it? A little more sunlight, a bit less shadow; other interaction in class/the cafeteria could’ve framed it more as a strong friendship – with possibilities. Pixar can do poignant well without force-feeding. As to totally unequal time: “Ellen”; “Will and Grace”…even “Person of Interest”, “NCIS” and “Bull” have integrated characters/plot lines. Parity is coming…I’m waiting for another “Ironside”, myself… [grin]
Maybe it’s not that you’re straight. Maybe it’s that you’re old? :) Do you remember high school? Furtive glances and “does ze like zirs?” and curious looks from classmates are all part of the adolescent dating game. I’m pretty old too, but I remember it well enough to remember that.
Yes, but unless we put some strong protections in place, why shouldn’t we expect the next Obama (there will be another. The pendulum swings) to do something just as awful? And that’s why people are pushing back. Because the left never reverses course. It might be halted slightly in its march toward domination, but it never retreats. Never.
I’m talking about being a dick, not getting into a silly oppression competition.
Using the n word when you’re not black, or ‘faggot’ when you’re not gay are pretty equivalent.
And I would be immensely surprised if Western Chauvinist used either ever – she doesn’t strike me as that type of person. Which is why the use of that other word was truly a little shocking.