2SLGBTQQIA+
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
A gay in Grade 6 eh? Sounds like bullshit to me. Effeminate yes. Gay no. She is pushing him.- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.www.youtube.com
But it's all about the kids, right?
Homosexuality: Parents Aren't Always to Blame
Scrawled in large black letters on a subway wall:“My mother made me a homosexual.”
And beneath it, in a somewhat more timid hand:
“If I get her the wool, will she make me one, too?”
The graffiti have long since been erased by whitewash, but mother re mains in the public mind as the butt of the not‐very‐funny homosexual joke. Among professionals, however, more careful studies of the roots of homosex uality are beginning to take mother— and father — somewhat off the hook.
While a child's parents obviously play a substantial role in whatever kind of person he eventually becomes, a num ber of experts now say that to give parents the sole blame — or credit— for his sexual development is simplistic and misleading.
“With perhaps 20 million American men who practice some form of homo sexuality,” says Dr. Lawrence J. Hatter er, psychiatrist at New York Hospital's Payne Whitney Clinic, “it's inconceiv able that all should have emerged from the same set of causes — the stereo type of the domineering, overprotective, feminizing mother and the weak or ab sent father.”
Dr. Hatterer has evaluated more than 1,000 homosexual men and treated more than 200 of them in the last 15 years. He says:
“I've heard well over 10,000 life sto ries of homosexuals, with every combi nation and variation of parental history that you can imagine — from the most hostile, aggressive, hypercritical mother and rejecting, emasculating father to the dominating, loving, attentive father and the gentle, almost too submissive mother.
Eda LeShan, New York psychologist and expert on child rearing, believes that the psychoanalytic emphasis on how parents affect their child's sexual ity has made many parents “self‐con scious and uneasy.”
Some young men may be more interested in arts and music than they are in athletics, and a boy whose predominant in terests are esthetic is a cultural outcast in current American society.
“I have seen mothers who are hys terical with fear when their perfectly normal 4‐year‐old sons wanted to wear high heels, and affectionate fathers who are ashamed that they like to have their children climb into bed with them on a Sunday morning,” Mrs. LeShan relates in her book, “Natural Parenthood.”
“It is important to remember,” she continues, “that for every aggressively seductive mother and passive or emo tionally absent father whose son turns out to be a homosexual, there are other mothers and fathers with exactly the same qualities who get to be grandmas and grandpas in the traditional fashion.”
Psychiatrists agree that it is by no means easy to turn a child into a homo sexual, and most children seem able to resist even the worst combination of in fluences.
David D. is a case in point. His mother was an overpowering, overpro tective, emasculating woman who clear ly wore the pants in the family. His father, although physically “there,” played almost no role in the boy's up bringing. The parents had frequent vio lent arguments.
The boy himself was pretty, over weight, clumsy, always lagging behind in physical activities, and often ridiculed by his playmates for his ineptness.
Yet, through all this, his masculine self‐image remained intact. Today, at the age of 26 after a number of hetero sexual affairs, he is about to be married to a lovely, feminine girl.
https://eb2.3lift.com/pass?tl_click...&btac=1&ts=1690105006&bcud=4359&ss=7&cb=44038
Since cases like David's rarely come to psychiatric attention, professionals really know very little about what enables one youngster to resist strong homosexualizing influences while anoth er succumbs to relatively innocuous forces.
In a long term study of boys, most of whom first showed effeminate char acteristics as early as age 2, 3 or 4, Dr. Bernard Zuger, child psychiatrist at Greenwich Hospital in Connecticut, found that the effeminate boys were no more likely than noneffeminate boys to have dominant mothers, their parents were no more likely to have wished for a girl, they were just as likely to be affectionate toward the child and there was no greater incidence of marital con flict.
•
Two important differences did emerge however. While the noneffeminate boy solicited his mother's attention and sym pathy, the effeminate boy aligned him self with her interests and activities. He had no interest in his father's ac tivities. In fact, a careful analysis of the family relationships indicated that wasn't the father who rejected his son, it was the son who rejected his father.
Part 2
In many cases that Dr. Hatterer and others have investigated, the parents of homosexuals have not been such bad folks, but other members of the family — such as a brother or sister the boy repeatedly lost out to or who continual ly bullied him, or an older relative, male or female, who consistently exploit ed the boy sexually — might have “ho mosexualized” him.
Dr. Martin Hoffman, psychiatrist at Mount Zion Medical Center in San Fran cisco, who summarized his study of ho mosexuals in a hook, “The Gay World,” also deplores the emphasis on parental influences.
While parent‐child interactions are a “crucial factor” in the development of sexual feelings, he says, “a full explana tion of any given adult's sexual pat terns must take into account the vital years between the beginning of school ing and the end of adolescence. It is during these years that the individual learns a great deal about who he is, what he can and cannot do, and how his age‐mates will respond to his ac tions.”
Dr. Hoffman recalls the case of a 47‐ year‐old business executive who had a “happy childhood,” a close, satisfactory relationship with his father and a pas sive mother who was devoted to her husband.
The boy's troubles began when he entered high school. His clumsiness and lack of interest in athletics isolated him from his peers. He was also afflicted with a severe case of acne, which made him unattractive to girls.
Doubting his masculinity, he be friended another boy outcast with defi nite effeminate mannerisms. After a while, they began experimenting sexual ly with one another and soon came to regard themselves as “gay.” The result: a lifelong commitment to homosexual ity.
If the unspoken rejection of a boy's peer group can have such a profound ef fect, certainly such shattering taunts as “sissy,” “Marna's boy,” “fatso,” “fag,” and the like can seriously undermine the sexual identity of a boy who may already be questioning his masculinity.
Dr. Hatterer believes that environ mental and cultural factors are becom ing increasingly important contributors to the development of homosexuality.
He notes, for example, that “young sters today are under more and more pressure to perform sexually well and early in life. Some boys may avoid het erosexual encounters because they're afraid they will be inadequate, others may fear the responsibility, still others may be afraid that their physical en dowments will make them subject to rid icule or unable to satisfy a woman.
“Let's face it, for a young boy who wants sex, it's much easier and faster and often less threatening to make, a ho mosexual contact than to pick up a girl.”
Sometimes, Dr. Hatterer adds, par ents inadvertently encourage such be havior by explicitly forbidding sexual encounters with girls but saying nothing explicit about other boys.
Other environmental influences Dr. Hatterer has encountered in dealing with homosexuals include the following:
¶“The $1‐billion hard core homosex ual pornography industry” and the pro liferation of homosexual movies. “For the vulnerable male, it's very stimulat ing and may be the thing that pushes him over the line.”
¶The growing public tolerance of ho mosexuality, which may make some men feel, “Maybe it's easier, and why not?”
¶The blending of traditional male and female roles that can lead to confusion in a boy's mind as to what is male and what is female, especially if the families of his friends are structured differently from his.
¶The value that our society places on sexual as well as material success. “For some young people failure, or im agined failure, in both these respects may lead to homosexuality.”
“Often,” Dr. Hatterer remarks in his recently published book, “Changing Ho mosexuality in the Male,” “the family can do nothing to counter outside influ ences of this kind.” He is critical of his psychiatric colleagues who, he says, have given very little attention to such environmental influences on male homo sexuality.”
Dr. Albert Ellis, New York psychol ogist and author of many books on sex and marriage, shares this view. “The Freudians,” he says, “highly exaggerate the part that family patterns play . . . and neglect the part that general cul ture patterns play.”
Psychiatrists agree that it is by no means easy to turn a child into a homo sexual, and most children seem able to resist even the worst combination of influences.
He notes, for example, that some young men may be more interested in arts and music than they are in athlet ics, and a boy whose predominant in terests are esthetic is a cultural outcast in current American society.
In their book, “Growing Up Straight,” Peter and Barbara Wyden describe a boy who became a homosexual largely because he was physically unable to match the masculine ideal of our cul ture. Instead, he developed his excel lent singing voice and sang in the church choir.
Strangely enough, when he traveled to Europe where the prevailing concept of masculinity encompasses esthetic in terests, he had no difficulty with hetero sexual relations, but upon returning to the United States, his homosexuality flared up again.
Dr. Hatterer's advice to parents: “May be your child is artistic and not such good ball player. Give him a chance to develop his other strengths, even if they don't fit the lines of our stereotyped view of masculinity. Don't push him and make
him feel like a failure if he can't do things that are constitutionally diffi cult for him.”
Parents can help counter the damage that may be done by the boy's peers, Dr. Hatterer believes, by conveying to their son that he fits their image of masculin ity and by showing him that they them selves are comfortable in their respective roles, regardless of who does the dishes or the cooking.
Many homosexuals are also begin ning to realize that the roots of their problems go beyond their parents. As one former homosexual, who is now married and leading a completely hetero sexual life, remarked: “The day I stopped blaming my parents for my con dition and accepted responsiblity for my acts was the day I began to grow up.
https://www.nytimes.com/1971/02/10/...rents-arent-always-to-blame.html#site-content
In many cases that Dr. Hatterer and others have investigated, the parents of homosexuals have not been such bad folks, but other members of the family — such as a brother or sister the boy repeatedly lost out to or who continual ly bullied him, or an older relative, male or female, who consistently exploit ed the boy sexually — might have “ho mosexualized” him.
Dr. Martin Hoffman, psychiatrist at Mount Zion Medical Center in San Fran cisco, who summarized his study of ho mosexuals in a hook, “The Gay World,” also deplores the emphasis on parental influences.
While parent‐child interactions are a “crucial factor” in the development of sexual feelings, he says, “a full explana tion of any given adult's sexual pat terns must take into account the vital years between the beginning of school ing and the end of adolescence. It is during these years that the individual learns a great deal about who he is, what he can and cannot do, and how his age‐mates will respond to his ac tions.”
Dr. Hoffman recalls the case of a 47‐ year‐old business executive who had a “happy childhood,” a close, satisfactory relationship with his father and a pas sive mother who was devoted to her husband.
The boy's troubles began when he entered high school. His clumsiness and lack of interest in athletics isolated him from his peers. He was also afflicted with a severe case of acne, which made him unattractive to girls.
Doubting his masculinity, he be friended another boy outcast with defi nite effeminate mannerisms. After a while, they began experimenting sexual ly with one another and soon came to regard themselves as “gay.” The result: a lifelong commitment to homosexual ity.
If the unspoken rejection of a boy's peer group can have such a profound ef fect, certainly such shattering taunts as “sissy,” “Marna's boy,” “fatso,” “fag,” and the like can seriously undermine the sexual identity of a boy who may already be questioning his masculinity.
Dr. Hatterer believes that environ mental and cultural factors are becom ing increasingly important contributors to the development of homosexuality.
He notes, for example, that “young sters today are under more and more pressure to perform sexually well and early in life. Some boys may avoid het erosexual encounters because they're afraid they will be inadequate, others may fear the responsibility, still others may be afraid that their physical en dowments will make them subject to rid icule or unable to satisfy a woman.
“Let's face it, for a young boy who wants sex, it's much easier and faster and often less threatening to make, a ho mosexual contact than to pick up a girl.”
Sometimes, Dr. Hatterer adds, par ents inadvertently encourage such be havior by explicitly forbidding sexual encounters with girls but saying nothing explicit about other boys.
Other environmental influences Dr. Hatterer has encountered in dealing with homosexuals include the following:
¶“The $1‐billion hard core homosex ual pornography industry” and the pro liferation of homosexual movies. “For the vulnerable male, it's very stimulat ing and may be the thing that pushes him over the line.”
¶The growing public tolerance of ho mosexuality, which may make some men feel, “Maybe it's easier, and why not?”
¶The blending of traditional male and female roles that can lead to confusion in a boy's mind as to what is male and what is female, especially if the families of his friends are structured differently from his.
¶The value that our society places on sexual as well as material success. “For some young people failure, or im agined failure, in both these respects may lead to homosexuality.”
“Often,” Dr. Hatterer remarks in his recently published book, “Changing Ho mosexuality in the Male,” “the family can do nothing to counter outside influ ences of this kind.” He is critical of his psychiatric colleagues who, he says, have given very little attention to such environmental influences on male homo sexuality.”
Dr. Albert Ellis, New York psychol ogist and author of many books on sex and marriage, shares this view. “The Freudians,” he says, “highly exaggerate the part that family patterns play . . . and neglect the part that general cul ture patterns play.”
Psychiatrists agree that it is by no means easy to turn a child into a homo sexual, and most children seem able to resist even the worst combination of influences.
He notes, for example, that some young men may be more interested in arts and music than they are in athlet ics, and a boy whose predominant in terests are esthetic is a cultural outcast in current American society.
In their book, “Growing Up Straight,” Peter and Barbara Wyden describe a boy who became a homosexual largely because he was physically unable to match the masculine ideal of our cul ture. Instead, he developed his excel lent singing voice and sang in the church choir.
Strangely enough, when he traveled to Europe where the prevailing concept of masculinity encompasses esthetic in terests, he had no difficulty with hetero sexual relations, but upon returning to the United States, his homosexuality flared up again.
Dr. Hatterer's advice to parents: “May be your child is artistic and not such good ball player. Give him a chance to develop his other strengths, even if they don't fit the lines of our stereotyped view of masculinity. Don't push him and make
him feel like a failure if he can't do things that are constitutionally diffi cult for him.”
Parents can help counter the damage that may be done by the boy's peers, Dr. Hatterer believes, by conveying to their son that he fits their image of masculin ity and by showing him that they them selves are comfortable in their respective roles, regardless of who does the dishes or the cooking.
Many homosexuals are also begin ning to realize that the roots of their problems go beyond their parents. As one former homosexual, who is now married and leading a completely hetero sexual life, remarked: “The day I stopped blaming my parents for my con dition and accepted responsiblity for my acts was the day I began to grow up.
https://www.nytimes.com/1971/02/10/...rents-arent-always-to-blame.html#site-content
Allan Stratton: The left’s social contract is broken. Here’s how to fix it — National Post
A relentless focus on dubious forms of ‘oppression’ is alienating traditional leftists. Saving the movement means returning to liberal roots
Allan Stratton: The left’s social contract is broken. Here’s how to fix it — National Post
A relentless focus on dubious forms of ‘oppression’ is alienating traditional leftists. Saving the movement means returning to liberal rootsapple.news
Can't comment on that article itself, as it's behind a paywall.
However.
The comments aren't and... wow. This one took the cake.
"I'm glad Stratton deliberately separates the LGB and T agendas. They are not in fact premised on the same interests or beliefs. The T agenda is based on a heteronormative gender identity perspective, whereby if a boy exhibits feminine characteristics and/or behaviors or a girl exhibits masculine characteristics and/or behaviors, it's assumed by many who believe in T orthodoxy that these children have been assigned an incorrect gender at birth and should therefore transition to reflect their correct gender. And many T activists assist that others comply with this perspective. Most members of the LGB community simply don't accept this construct, viewing human sexuality in a much more flexible fashion."
... Uh huh...
Obviously this person has bought into the GLB Alliance bullshit.
Because no, this ISN'T what trans people believe (and fyi, "Trans" can cover a large umbrella of people, not just specifically FtM or MtF trans people).
This idea that the GLB community is stepping away from the Trans and rest of the "community", is, sadly, semi-correct though. Because there are extremists out there doing just that, and advocating for it. Some of it is based on the idea that "Everyone else" is gender based while GLB is more focused on sexuality, the other part is that there are GLB who, as I said, bout into the idea that somehow Trans et al are "Bad" for the GLB community.
And yet I don't see any support for those who are trans, but fall under GLB as well. Because someone can be Trans, but also be G, L, OR B at the same time.
Since it is "Sexuality" and not "Gender", after all.
In any event; no. As part of those under the T umbrella, no, this ISN'T what the "T agenda" is about. At it's basic level, those under the T umbrella just want to live their lives being who they are without fear from people, and being labelled as "pedophiles" and "Groomers". They just want to live without being asked "Do you have X body part?" They just want to live without having to worry that someone wants them eradicated just for simply being who they are.
The T agenda? To not just survive, but fucking LIVE.
Sorry. It’s not for me for whatever reason and I’m not subscribed to Nation Post. Here you go:
Toronto is one of the most tolerant, multicultural cities in the world. And yet, according to many of its progressive journalists, academics, and politicians, it’s actually a den of systemic racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia. Unless you’re a straight white man, daily life is supposedly an exhausting and dangerous struggle. If you live in the United States, the UK, Australia, or elsewhere in Canada, I’m guessing you’ve been told similar things about your own society.
I’m a gay man for whom these reports bear no relationship to the real world. Certainly, hate-crime statistics show a sharp increase in physical and verbal abuse against specific demographics, including my own. And there are even rare incidents of murder and arson. But to suggest that minorities live under constant threat from a bigoted majority is apocalyptic nonsense. This is especially true of Canada, an especially open, diverse, and welcoming country. Western nations, more generally, are incontrovertibly the most tolerant on the planet.
My heretical view (among fellow progressives, at least) may be due to my “positionality” (this being a faddishly woke jargon term that most English speakers would call “perspective”). The Holocaust and the internment of Japanese North Americans ended a mere six years before I was born. The pass system that turned Canadian Indigenous reservations into open-air prison camps was still in force. The United States was segregated by Jim Crow and redlining. Cross burnings and lynchings went unpunished. Marital rape was legal. Spousal abuse and unequal pay were commonplace. Gay sex and cross-dressing were criminalized, with outed individuals losing their jobs and children. “Fag bashing” was treated as public entertainment.
In the relatively few decades since, western governments have implemented universal civil and human rights protections for racial and sexual minorities. The speed and depth of this transformation has been so remarkable that it seems inconceivable that we ever lived as we once did. Has any other culture critiqued its failings and set about reforming itself so quickly?
This is not to suggest that everything is sunshine and lollipops. Human nature has not been repealed. Police departments without effective civilian oversight, for instance, continue to invite corruption and abuse. Nonetheless, we now have the tools to press for accountability, such as human rights tribunals and whistleblower protections.
It’s also important to acknowledge that while the relative increase in reported hate crimes may seem shocking, that rise is based on a remarkably low baseline. For instance, 2021 saw a 65 per cent increase in incidents (over 50 per cent of these comprising verbal slurs) targeting Canada’s LGB and T communities. But that still represents just 423 cases in a country of 40-million people. That’s hardly a “tsunami of hate.” The number is infinitesimal compared to the 114,132 domestic assaults and 34,242 sexual assaults recorded against women.
(trying not to get that 10,000 character limit)
One often hears that a reversion to the backward ways of the past is just around the corner. And it is true that abortion rights now hang in the balance in many conservative U.S. states. But the idea that any Western country (especially Canada) is on the cusp of a wholesale rejection of liberal principles is absurd. Women will never again need their husband’s signature to open a bank account. Racial segregation is unthinkable (except, ironically, in certain progressive institutions). Marriage equality for same-sex couples is constitutionally protected in North America, and enjoys a historic 70 per cent level of support in the United States.
So, unlike those on the left who came of age in the 90s and the decades that followed, I don’t see an intolerant society destroying civil rights and minority safety. Rather, what I am now witnessing is a period of progressive overreach, led by ideologues with no (apparent) historical memory or understanding of how our liberal social contract evolved. They have turned language inside out so as to render words such as “woman,” “safety,” and “genocide” essentially meaningless; pursued policies that lock one-time progressive allies in a zero-sum culture-war conflict; recast free speech as hate speech; confused wishes (and, in some cases, fantasies) with rights; and punished dissenters from their Borg-think with social exclusion, “re-education,” and firing.
This radical attempt to unilaterally impose a new social order based on race and gender essentialism has ignited a widespread public backlash, which has been weaponized by the far right, destroyed public goodwill, and done more damage to the progressive cause than anything its reactionary enemies have done in recent years.
The civil-rights movements of the last century won victories by liberal means based on liberal values. This included an insistence on free speech and civil liberties; and an appeal to the universal values of dignity and equality, which in turn underpin the case for protecting individual human rights and freedoms.
In part, this was because we liberals understood math. We needed white, straight, male legislators to support our causes, a project that could only be engaged through free and open debate. Empathy-based co-operation enabled us to create bridges among our diverse groups: The Gay Liberation Front raised money for the Black Panthers. In turn, its leader, Huey Newton, supported the gay liberation and women’s liberation movements. Meanwhile, Jewish groups applied their historical understanding of discrimination to help lead the fights for women’s rights (Betty Friedan), gay rights (Larry Kramer), and black voting rights, with some even giving their lives as Freedom Riders.
One often hears that a reversion to the backward ways of the past is just around the corner. And it is true that abortion rights now hang in the balance in many conservative U.S. states. But the idea that any Western country (especially Canada) is on the cusp of a wholesale rejection of liberal principles is absurd. Women will never again need their husband’s signature to open a bank account. Racial segregation is unthinkable (except, ironically, in certain progressive institutions). Marriage equality for same-sex couples is constitutionally protected in North America, and enjoys a historic 70 per cent level of support in the United States.
So, unlike those on the left who came of age in the 90s and the decades that followed, I don’t see an intolerant society destroying civil rights and minority safety. Rather, what I am now witnessing is a period of progressive overreach, led by ideologues with no (apparent) historical memory or understanding of how our liberal social contract evolved. They have turned language inside out so as to render words such as “woman,” “safety,” and “genocide” essentially meaningless; pursued policies that lock one-time progressive allies in a zero-sum culture-war conflict; recast free speech as hate speech; confused wishes (and, in some cases, fantasies) with rights; and punished dissenters from their Borg-think with social exclusion, “re-education,” and firing.
This radical attempt to unilaterally impose a new social order based on race and gender essentialism has ignited a widespread public backlash, which has been weaponized by the far right, destroyed public goodwill, and done more damage to the progressive cause than anything its reactionary enemies have done in recent years.
The civil-rights movements of the last century won victories by liberal means based on liberal values. This included an insistence on free speech and civil liberties; and an appeal to the universal values of dignity and equality, which in turn underpin the case for protecting individual human rights and freedoms.
In part, this was because we liberals understood math. We needed white, straight, male legislators to support our causes, a project that could only be engaged through free and open debate. Empathy-based co-operation enabled us to create bridges among our diverse groups: The Gay Liberation Front raised money for the Black Panthers. In turn, its leader, Huey Newton, supported the gay liberation and women’s liberation movements. Meanwhile, Jewish groups applied their historical understanding of discrimination to help lead the fights for women’s rights (Betty Friedan), gay rights (Larry Kramer), and black voting rights, with some even giving their lives as Freedom Riders.
By contrast, today’s illiberal left explicitly rejects the principles of free speech and universality. It ignores the lessons of past civil-rights successes, often denying that such successes even took place. After all, how can one insist on the dismantling (or “decolonization”) of a system that has shown itself capable of self-correction and continuous improvement? The only framework that validates the progressive narrative of ongoing oppression and white supremacy is one that ahistorically presents mainstream liberal values as a failure.
The switch in social-justice circles from liberal to authoritarian ends and means has at least three major causes. The first is structural: As (originally) liberal rights groups such as the ACLU achieved their objectives, they were required to rewrite their mission statements and pretend away their past successes — this being the only way to justify their ongoing existence.
Far from seeking to “burn it all down,” most of us within the original LGB and T movements simply wanted equality within existing social structures. We used liberal “respectability politics” to make our case, and (for the most part) folded our tents when we achieved our goal. The unwitting effect of this was to leave our old organizations to the radicals, who had long condemned us as sellouts to the patriarchy. Their goal is nothing less than the remaking — or “queering” — of society, a vaguely defined project infused with a deep suspicion of, or even hostility to, capitalism and the nuclear family. The liberal LGB and T wish to live and let live is now the authoritarian “live as we live.”
The second factor is generational change. Just as children separate from their parents in their passage to adulthood, so does each generation define itself in contradistinction to its immediate predecessor. Without personal memory of past struggles, present conditions are taken for granted. And so the battle against current injustices (real or otherwise) is seen as humanity’s defining and timeless struggle.
My generation mocked our parents’ conformity and stoic, suck-it-up ethos, forgetting that these traits had been necessary social adaptations during the Great Depression and World War II. Similarly, activists of this generation attack our commitment to free speech and integration within society, forgetting that these strategies were necessary for us to be heard during the Cold War, when outsiders were suspected as potential fifth columnists.
But perhaps the most significant factor has been the academic trend toward postmodernism, which instructs adherents that neither objective reality nor human nature exist in any certain, provable way. Reason, logic, and objective facts are rejected — or at least put in scare quotes — as are appeals to history and science. These are all held to be mere artifacts of language, which is itself presented as a reflection of existing power structures. And since these structures are presumed to systematically oppress the powerless, they must be deconstructed, dismantled, and decolonized, root and branch.
The switch in social-justice circles from liberal to authoritarian ends and means has at least three major causes. The first is structural: As (originally) liberal rights groups such as the ACLU achieved their objectives, they were required to rewrite their mission statements and pretend away their past successes — this being the only way to justify their ongoing existence.
Far from seeking to “burn it all down,” most of us within the original LGB and T movements simply wanted equality within existing social structures. We used liberal “respectability politics” to make our case, and (for the most part) folded our tents when we achieved our goal. The unwitting effect of this was to leave our old organizations to the radicals, who had long condemned us as sellouts to the patriarchy. Their goal is nothing less than the remaking — or “queering” — of society, a vaguely defined project infused with a deep suspicion of, or even hostility to, capitalism and the nuclear family. The liberal LGB and T wish to live and let live is now the authoritarian “live as we live.”
The second factor is generational change. Just as children separate from their parents in their passage to adulthood, so does each generation define itself in contradistinction to its immediate predecessor. Without personal memory of past struggles, present conditions are taken for granted. And so the battle against current injustices (real or otherwise) is seen as humanity’s defining and timeless struggle.
My generation mocked our parents’ conformity and stoic, suck-it-up ethos, forgetting that these traits had been necessary social adaptations during the Great Depression and World War II. Similarly, activists of this generation attack our commitment to free speech and integration within society, forgetting that these strategies were necessary for us to be heard during the Cold War, when outsiders were suspected as potential fifth columnists.
But perhaps the most significant factor has been the academic trend toward postmodernism, which instructs adherents that neither objective reality nor human nature exist in any certain, provable way. Reason, logic, and objective facts are rejected — or at least put in scare quotes — as are appeals to history and science. These are all held to be mere artifacts of language, which is itself presented as a reflection of existing power structures. And since these structures are presumed to systematically oppress the powerless, they must be deconstructed, dismantled, and decolonized, root and branch.
This kind of thinking isn’t just claptrap that flies in the face of day-to-day human experience. It also encourages a kind of intellectual nihilism that precludes amelioration of the injustices and power imbalances that supposedly concern many postmodern thinkers: After all, what could possibly replace our current power-based intellectual constructs except new power-based intellectual constructs?
Nonetheless, postmodern habits of mind (often flying under the banner of “critical” studies of one kind or another) have infected academic humanities and social science departments all over the west, much like the fungal parasite on The Last of Us. Its professorial hosts now work to dismantle their own institutions, attacking the “colonial” concepts of science and empiricism in favour of undefined and unfalsifiable “ways of knowing.” Meanwhile, their students have incubated its spores and spread them into the wider society, including corporate human-rights offices.
Progressives (rightly) have denounced Donald Trump and his supporters for their paranoid belief that the 2020 U.S. election was “stolen.” But these right-wing conspiracy theorists are not so different from campus leftists when it comes to their à la carte approach to accepting or rejecting reality according to passing ideological convenience.
In particular, the idea that pronouns serve as magic spells that can turn a man into a (literal) women is no less ridiculous than anything Trump has ever said. The same goes for the mantra that while girls who cut themselves need therapy, girls seeking a double mastectomy require “affirmation.” Likewise: Racial segregation is a bigoted practice … except when it represents the very acme of progressive enlightenment. “Defund the police” doesn’t mean abolish the police, except when it means exactly that.
And then there’s Schrödinger’s Antifa, which presents these street thugs either as a very real force that rose up as a morally laudable reaction to fascism … or as something that exists only in Tucker Carlson’s fever dreams, depending on context.
But postmodernism and critical theory have done more than just damage our societies’ intellectual cohesion. Their denial of universal human nature eliminates empathy as a tool to bridge differences among groups, which are instead presented as warring sects prosecuting unbridgeable race (or gender) feuds. Since power is presented as the singular currency of the realm, the ability to shut the other side up is valued more than the ability to persuade it.
Gay men such as Andrew Sullivan and Andrew Doyle have been among the most prominent dissenters against wokeism — in part because we instinctively recognize the destructive nature of this power-fixated mindset. Our experience suggests that empathy and reason are far more important than threats and cultural power plays.
Dave Chappelle has said that the LGBT movement won public support more quickly than its black counterpart because of racism. But I believe the truth is different: Unlike racial and ethnic minorities, we exist in every demographic, every family, every ethnic category. When we gay men came out en masse during the 1980s AIDS pandemic, all communities realized that we were among its children, parents, and siblings. People have a harder time discriminating against their own than against outsiders.
Traditionally, the left has appealed to a sense of camaraderie and shared purpose. The resulting project of alliance-building has entailed negotiation among different groups, all of which may have different priorities and perspectives. But that alliance-building project becomes impossible when one sect or another demands that disagreement be treated as a form of thoughtcrime. Deplatforming doesn’t just hurt the target; it also hurts the movement, since the summary excommunication of dissidents means that adherents never need to acknowledge or address counterarguments, internal logical inconsistencies, or the off-putting nature of their message.
Indeed, ideologues such as Nikole Hannah-Jones claim that politics has a colour: Blacks who aren’t “politically black” are traitors who collaborate with “whiteness.” As seen through this lens, Asian-Americans who fight anti-Asian discrimination in the context of affirmative action are supposedly puppets of white supremacists, and the LGB Alliance, by standing up for same-sex attraction, is smeared as a transphobic hate group. (For asserting that biology is real, Stonewall UK even tried to destroy the career of one of the LGB Alliance’s founders, Allison Bailey, a lifelong social justice advocate who happens to be a black, working-class lesbian, and the child of immigrant parents. Thankfully, Stonewall did not prevail.)
apple.news
Nonetheless, postmodern habits of mind (often flying under the banner of “critical” studies of one kind or another) have infected academic humanities and social science departments all over the west, much like the fungal parasite on The Last of Us. Its professorial hosts now work to dismantle their own institutions, attacking the “colonial” concepts of science and empiricism in favour of undefined and unfalsifiable “ways of knowing.” Meanwhile, their students have incubated its spores and spread them into the wider society, including corporate human-rights offices.
Progressives (rightly) have denounced Donald Trump and his supporters for their paranoid belief that the 2020 U.S. election was “stolen.” But these right-wing conspiracy theorists are not so different from campus leftists when it comes to their à la carte approach to accepting or rejecting reality according to passing ideological convenience.
In particular, the idea that pronouns serve as magic spells that can turn a man into a (literal) women is no less ridiculous than anything Trump has ever said. The same goes for the mantra that while girls who cut themselves need therapy, girls seeking a double mastectomy require “affirmation.” Likewise: Racial segregation is a bigoted practice … except when it represents the very acme of progressive enlightenment. “Defund the police” doesn’t mean abolish the police, except when it means exactly that.
And then there’s Schrödinger’s Antifa, which presents these street thugs either as a very real force that rose up as a morally laudable reaction to fascism … or as something that exists only in Tucker Carlson’s fever dreams, depending on context.
But postmodernism and critical theory have done more than just damage our societies’ intellectual cohesion. Their denial of universal human nature eliminates empathy as a tool to bridge differences among groups, which are instead presented as warring sects prosecuting unbridgeable race (or gender) feuds. Since power is presented as the singular currency of the realm, the ability to shut the other side up is valued more than the ability to persuade it.
Gay men such as Andrew Sullivan and Andrew Doyle have been among the most prominent dissenters against wokeism — in part because we instinctively recognize the destructive nature of this power-fixated mindset. Our experience suggests that empathy and reason are far more important than threats and cultural power plays.
Dave Chappelle has said that the LGBT movement won public support more quickly than its black counterpart because of racism. But I believe the truth is different: Unlike racial and ethnic minorities, we exist in every demographic, every family, every ethnic category. When we gay men came out en masse during the 1980s AIDS pandemic, all communities realized that we were among its children, parents, and siblings. People have a harder time discriminating against their own than against outsiders.
Traditionally, the left has appealed to a sense of camaraderie and shared purpose. The resulting project of alliance-building has entailed negotiation among different groups, all of which may have different priorities and perspectives. But that alliance-building project becomes impossible when one sect or another demands that disagreement be treated as a form of thoughtcrime. Deplatforming doesn’t just hurt the target; it also hurts the movement, since the summary excommunication of dissidents means that adherents never need to acknowledge or address counterarguments, internal logical inconsistencies, or the off-putting nature of their message.
Indeed, ideologues such as Nikole Hannah-Jones claim that politics has a colour: Blacks who aren’t “politically black” are traitors who collaborate with “whiteness.” As seen through this lens, Asian-Americans who fight anti-Asian discrimination in the context of affirmative action are supposedly puppets of white supremacists, and the LGB Alliance, by standing up for same-sex attraction, is smeared as a transphobic hate group. (For asserting that biology is real, Stonewall UK even tried to destroy the career of one of the LGB Alliance’s founders, Allison Bailey, a lifelong social justice advocate who happens to be a black, working-class lesbian, and the child of immigrant parents. Thankfully, Stonewall did not prevail.)
Allan Stratton: The left’s social contract is broken. Here’s how to fix it — National Post
A relentless focus on dubious forms of ‘oppression’ is alienating traditional leftists. Saving the movement means returning to liberal roots
Thanks Ron, will read it, but tbh by the comments I am not hopeful of common sense in this.
In all honesty, I’ve only read the first three or four or five paragraphs myself. Thought those were an interesting perspective, and I was outside for all of two minutes having a quick cigarette…. So I copy and pasted the link and went back to work.
Now I’ve read through it. Still an interesting perspective coming from a gay guy who’s close to 70hrs old & has seen a lot come & go. Long though, but very interesting.
(I don’t know if I needed to split it over four posts, but that was faster than trying to delete paragraph after paragraph after paragraph trying to make it fit into the 10,000 characters or less format)
(I don’t know if I needed to split it over four posts, but that was faster than trying to delete paragraph after paragraph after paragraph trying to make it fit into the 10,000 characters or less format)
Wait. . . he's less than three days old and he's already seen a lot?
Reminds me of the prisoner who spent 15 years slowly, carefully digging a tunnel to escape, and when the day finally came, he went through his tunnel and came up in. . . a children's playground. He was so overwhelmed by being out he ran up to a little girl and shouted "I'm free! I'm FREE!"
The little girl scoffed and said "So what? I'm four."
Yesterday was a long day. What can I say. Swimming in ELD’s that Micro-measure fractions of time down to the seconds minutes hours etc…& software that gets confused by calendar days and borders with different rules for each country that it’s suppose to catch automatically via gps that rarely works like it’s suppose to.
I meant years, but with measuring much smaller fractions of time throughout the day, I slipped.
I meant years, but with measuring much smaller fractions of time throughout the day, I slipped.
The above and this seem to fit together:Allan Stratton: The left’s social contract is broken. Here’s how to fix it — National Post
A relentless focus on dubious forms of ‘oppression’ is alienating traditional leftists. Saving the movement means returning to liberal roots
Michael Higgins: School principal's death is a stain on the conscience of this nation — National Post
It's time to stand up against the woke zealots who destroyed Richard Bilkszto
The above and this seem to fit together:
Michael Higgins: School principal's death is a stain on the conscience of this nation — National Post
It's time to stand up against the woke zealots who destroyed Richard Bilkszto
Another paywall but found the story about Bilkszto elsewhere.
First, that he was driven - yes, driven - to suicide is appalling, disgusting and absolutely the result of bullying. The irony is that those now crying about this, some of them would otherwise shout "Suck it up", "move on" and "get over it" if it were someone that didn't fit with their ideology (aka "the left"). After all, he was only bullied, just verbally abused, it's not like it was a big deal.
Right?
That's what is being told to kids, despite people - on the left - saying "no this isn't right"...
It's sad that it seems to only matter to some when it's someone they can throw support behind, instead of it being someone that deserved support because they're human.
Second - I hope the lawsuit goes through and this garbage person running that so called "program" is held accountable in some way.
Yep, firmly against that group and the woman leading the training given at the time. More specifically, fuck her and her self-righteous horse she rode in on.
Canada has racism problems, but it is NOT at the extent of the US and I don't think it's any more "neglectful" about it's history in regards to black people as the US is. It's certainly not LESS.
And if the comments reported that the woman said to Bilkszto are true, she IS part of the problem when it comes to racesim these days.
So yeah, fuck her and her "program" for pushing this man to have his career forcefully ended, and his life ended.
Are you still not seeing yourself in those articles? They are both about you and people like you.