While I deeply disagree and detest the use of the term "groomer", the people who are doing so, are doing so in reaction to this dogma. Mind you, this is not about sexual minorities, but about infringing on child-parent relationships. As far as I best know (I can be wrong), the dogma is largely unsubstantiated, and it is not majority accepted in most places around the world (look at the UK for instance). Mind you, this is not about trans or gay acceptance, but the rejection of the biological sex binary, the conflation of sex and gender, and the subversion of parent-teacher relationships in favour of this dogma.
Furthermore, I don't think "groomer" is the modern newspeak. If anything, the dogma that the terrible term "groomer" was meant to counter has the support of countless of mainstream institutions, academic, political, medical, etc. Unless you live in a pure conservative bubble of any sorts, the dogma is word, the dogma is the newspeak; for starters, painting actual bigots and people who have compassion for these minorities (but refuse to toe the line behind this dogma) with the same brush by calling them "would-be killers". As such, there is a middle ground to be found, a minority of extremists such as yourself just get in the way.
In any case, the way you write about self expression (and the Matt Walsh-level unseriousness of describing drag shows as a mockery to trans women) suggest you're not really looking to find a common ground that would allow non-conformity in public.
But there is a big difference between that and putting one on at a public school or library.
This argument is brought to you by the same crowd of incels and other neo-reactionaries who lament the public reaction to their continued efforts to be shockingly edgy
> Such rejection of social norms should not be granted state sanction by hosting such events in public libraries.
Why? What social norms should the state care about? All social norms? What about the social norms of say, redlining communities? Should the state sanction that social norm, because it's a social norm?
No, sorry, standard brown immigrant socialization—which is why both DeSantis and Youngkin won on this issue. Look, my family voted for Biden but we would lose our shit if any of our kids got a tattoo. You do not want to fight us in that turf.
> Why? What social norms should the state care about?
If we are talking about what state sanction directed to children, then it should be the social norms parents want to impart to their kids. There id a majority coalition for those norms to include accepting people who are born different. There is not a majority coalition in support of voluntary gender norm breaking in the name of self expression.
As opposed to in the name of what else? your posts are so weird - no one is trying to fight you, so maybe tone it down. Like, you post at me like I'm going into your community and making you do things with your children, it's a bit ridiculous. We are just chatting on a website.
>No, sorry, standard brown immigrant socialization—which is why both DeSantis and Youngkin won on this issue.
What?
To conform their outward presentation to the gender they identify with, which is a fact rooted in biology.
>No, sorry, standard brown immigrant socialization—which is why both DeSantis and Youngkin won on this issue.
> What?
The vast majority of the world does not embrace white American notions of individualistic self expression. We think norm enforcement and conformity are good things that help kids stay on track. Both Youngkin in VA and DeSantis in FL won majorities among Hispanics (a group that usually favors democrats) by focusing on that disconnect between liberal teachers and more conservative families. https://interactives.ap.org/votecast-2021-va; https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/florida-latinos-turned-f...
I'm sorry but how is that not also self expression?
>The vast majority of the world does not embrace white American notions of individualistic self expression. We think norm enforcement and conformity are good things that help kids stay on track. Both Youngkin in VA and DeSantis in FL won majorities among Hispanics (a group that usually favors democrats) by focusing on that disconnect between liberal teachers and more conservative families.
This is completely non-responsive to what you offered it as a response to.
Rachel Levine (a trans woman) dresses how she does for the same reason I (a cis man) do. Both our brains have a notion of our own sex, and we conform to society’s gender norms consistent with that internal understanding. It’s completely different than people who dress the way they do, or get tattoos or nose rings to make a statement, set themselves apart as individuals, or thumb their nose at society and it’s rules.
> This is completely non-responsive to what you offered it as a response to.
Not at all. You characterized my position as “incel” above, because the people having all the kids mostly share my viewpoint. It’s the dominant view in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, etc. Liberal Americans are the most pathologically individualistic people in the world.
> Not at all. You characterized my position as “incel” above, because the people having all the kids mostly share my viewpoint. It’s the dominant view in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, etc. Liberal Americans are the most pathologically individualistic people in the world.
No, I categorized your position as being espoused by incels. Which is true. I don't care what you are.
> It’s the dominant view in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, etc. Liberal Americans are the most pathologically individualistic people in the world.
Well, we are talking about American culture here so I'm not sure what you think your point serves.
Mere assertion. Not an argument.
The supposed arguments against drag queen story time are either unserious hand-wringing about supposed harms coming from drag, a form of art older than modern gender roles, or simple threats of violence. Neither are actual arguments, just argument-shaped word noises.
> By contrast, trans people presenting consistent with their biological gender identity isn't a form of voluntary self expression, any more than it is for a cis person to do so.
"Biological gender identity" is ill-defined here, to the extent I honestly don't know what you mean: Do you mean a trans woman, such as Blaire White, dressing and acting like a woman? The phrase "biological gender identity" seems to conflate the modern conception of sex (genitals, chromosomes to some extent, hormones) with the modern conception of gender (roles, presentation, identity) and I'm now confused.
So is rayiner, I think.
Accepting the right of people to present themselves consistent with their gender identity has nothing to do with sanctioning breaking gender norms for “art” or other purposes, which is the focus of drag.
In any case, for those I know who have considered it, most reject the notion that one's acceptance be based on simply having no choice in the matter of their gender identity, sexuality, or other identifiers like skin color or disability, because it suggests that their value is arrived at only reluctantly and it is on them to prove they should be treated like anyone else.
Contrary to your quixotic theory, most nominally liberal or queer-accepting people I've met root their ethics in something like humanism (including for example Christian humanism). A person is valuable because they are, because they exist. Self-expression is an outgrowth of such a belief. It is part of flourishing and living into the world. It is rarely if ever a worldview of itself.
Similarly, drag is not just art for the sake of art or transgression for the sake of transgression. It has not always been considered transgressive. It has a long tradition in gay spaces as an activity that brings people together and in many ways is used to show that queer people are not alone. It is a way of exploring the boundaries of what it means to be human.
All of it is of a piece because people are not collections of independent atomic functions, they are bodies and minds and live in spaces.
The following statement from the American Psychological Association is quoted prominently in Obergefell:
“Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable. See Brief for American Psychological Association et al. as Amici Curiae 7–17.
The Human Rights Campaign defines sexual orientation as: “Sexual Orientation: An inherent or immutable enduring emotional, romantic or sexual attraction to other people.
> In any case, for those I know who have considered it, most reject the notion that one's acceptance be based on simply having no choice in the matter of their gender identity, sexuality, or other identifiers like skin color or disability, because it suggests that their value is arrived at only reluctantly and it is on them to prove they should be treated like anyone else.
Your conclusion only follows if you begin with an individualistic humanist perspective. Most people in the world, and probably a plurality in America, believe in natural order, not individual choice. Virtue is doing what you’re supposed to do; vice is acting contrary to nature’s or God’s plan. Conformity is pro-social; non-conformity is anti-social. Consequently, it’s extremely significant whether that sexual orientation and gender identity are innate. It means God made you that way. And it means that you’re doing what you’re programmed to do, and not deliberately thumbing your nose at society’s conventions.
Perhaps what you call nose-thumbing is in fact "doing what you're programmed to do" by genetics and upbringing.
I mean, this is either an ill-informed or wildly hateful view. Many drag shows are appropriate for children. Many drag shows are not appropriate for children.
We didn't criminalize TV writers when South Park contained adult humor. In fact, we started showing it all day long.
No it's not and that's a completely disingenuous reading of what is actually going on in Florida, which is clearly reactive politics and pearl-grasping over every single culture war issue because their governor is pushing these kinds of policies to gain nat'l political prominence.
>That’s why these middle aged librarians have drag shows for kids. In a way drag shows are a mockery of trans women. That doesn’t matter to them, because for them the overriding principle is self expression.
Lol, I see what's really going on with your post now.
That's certainly a narrative one side sells. One does have to wonder though, how it is that this could be possible given the complete lack of power in society held by those individuals. Maybe it's a bit more hyped up than it really is.
Yes. They're the ones who try to enforce their views at gunpoint.
> These people are pushing their views through the education system (I do not know the extent of it, just that it exists), and seemingly without the consent of parents (i.e., social transitions without informing parents).
You were going so well until the end, there. They don't enable social transition without parental consent, they insist upon genital inspections without parental consent. Looking at the genitals of pre-pubescent children isn't something which would interest me, but they seem quite keen on it. It isn't something I can condone, of course, and not something I can meet them halfway on.
> While I deeply disagree and detest the use of the term "groomer", the people who are doing so, are doing so in reaction to this dogma.
Insisting on access to the genitals of children is grooming behavior. Normalizing the idea that strangers get to poke around without consent is pure grooming. It's why I can't accept it.
You can start by pulling back from the obvious rhetorical flourishes. We can acknowledge that social liberals aren’t literally child molesters. At the same time, can you acknowledge that parents in Florida don’t want to put anyone to death, but simply don’t trust what liberal teachers will tell their kids about sexuality?
Like is it possible for you to acknowledge that folks in Florida don’t want to kill sexual minorities, but are also wary of a resurgent sexual revolution that could change the behaviors of kids who aren’t born gay or trans? Like can you seriously deny that there is an emerging trend of sexual identity becoming a form of self expression? https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/19/health/pronouns-guide-for-par...
"Florida Republicans Take Aim at Gender-Affirming Care, Drag Shows... [The bill] would treat parents as abusers for allowing medical care to children, and cracks down on parenting harder even than Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s notorious anti-trans child executive order." [1]
"Florida lawmakers approve death penalty in child rapes, sending bill to governor... The Florida Senate on Tuesday passed a bill that would allow the death penalty for people who commit sexual batteries on children under age 12, sending the issue to Gov. Ron DeSantis." [2]
"Florida to allow death penalty with 8-4 jury vote instead of unanimously... If the Republican governor signs the bill into law, Florida prosecutors trying capital felony cases would need to convince only two-thirds of the 12-member jury that someone who is convicted deserves the death penalty, rather than a unanimous decision by a jury." [3]
This is just like the Dobbs decision. When that landed, you had assured us it was a great thing because it meant the states could finally decide once and for all their local norms based on local politics. Well here we are now and there's a nationwide ban on abortion medicine because of an ideologue federal judge with a religious bent, writing laws from the bench, who decided he didn't like it, so we all have to abide by that. People who live in communities that support these medications will be affected, and we were assured by conservatives on the court (and their supporters) that this situation would not come to pass. Yet here we are.
So really, I can't stand any more predications about what restraint the right will use with the passing. Any loophole in there will be used as such. Omissions and vague language isn't an oversight in lawmaking, it's a tool which allows leeway to apply the law in whatever way law enforcement (Ron DeSantis) prefers.
We cannot give Florida the benefit of the doubt that they aren't currently laying the edifices for genocide because a man like Ron DeSantis would never aspire to exact that kind of revenge on his enemies. Please. The man oozes petty authoritarianism. He is a walking narcissistic injury, and he's willing to use his office to exact personal revenge against political opponents. He's not fooling anyone, and any calls to "please let's all give everyone the benefit of the doubt" doesn't pass the laugh test when he's lowering the threshold for the death penalty.
[1] https://www.advocate.com/politics/florida-republicans-transg...
[2] https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ne-nsf-death-p...
[3] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/florida-allow-death-penalty...
Yeah sure, let's put child rapists to death, who could disagree with that? Until all of a sudden what you do in your private or with your friends or with your family is considered "child abuse". Until your lifestyle is considered "child abuse". Until your existence is considered "child abuse". The way fascists work your religion will be considered "child abuse" eventually. You've heard of the 9 most terrifying words, well the 4 most terrifying words in English are "think of the children!" There's no limit to the atrocities people will commit in the name of God and in the name of protecting children.
Do you ever wonder how a society can go from civil to erecting industrial scale human-death factories. It's little steps like these, and people rationalizing them along the way. We can make our children safe from rape and abuse without putting anyone to death. 0 people have to be put to death to keep children safe. And yet, here we are, the state is making it easier to put human beings to death as a matter of law. There should be no higher red flag raised than that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_grooming_conspiracy_theor...
Surely you've noticed?
> drag shows for children.
God forbid someone in a dress read a storybook. Try not to engage in this ridiculous moral panic.
What's happening is that those parents are making a fuss about what other parents are deciding to do.
Telling other kids and parents what to do is a consistent position. Like forced identity disclosures in schools. It isn't enough that they would like to get notified, but every kid who asks to be called something different has to be disclosed, or if they don't want their kid playing sports with a trans kid, they would rather kick out the trans kid out than make choices about their own participation.
This is nonsense and you aren't seriously engaging in any conversation by typing crap like this
There are no state-mandated drag shows. Liberals do not have the power to compel you to attend drag shows or to take your children there. Full stop. Get a grip.
Sorry, but what's the problem with sexual identity being a form of self expression? Really struggling with this...
Look, we are not going to agree on that. What we can agree on, however, is that God (or the pre-natal endocrine environment, if you prefer) makes certain people different, and that those people should be able to participate in social institutions like marriage consistent with their biology. That premise is the lynchpin for 71% of the American populace supporting same-sex marriage.
On the other hand, if you want to force a debate on whether sexuality should be private or public, or whether individuals have social roles and be subject to social norms dictated by their biology, that is an entirely different fight, and it's one you don't want to have.
I mean, no, we can't agree on that restrictive phrasing.
Even to the extent we might agree that biological differences might sometimes be socially relevant, there is no special biological privilege to pre-natal effects.
(But mostly this seems to be appealing to the flawed “born different” premise for legal rights.)
What I hear you saying, however, is that DeSantis is correct. Liberals really are using “accept people how God made them” as a pretext to teach kids “you can choose to be who you want to be.” If that is the case, we really do have an ideological war on our hands against the malign forces of secular humanism coming for our kids.
Agree on what? I didn't ask you to agree. I asked you to express what the problem with sexual identity being a form of self expression? I literally do not understand what your problem with this is, and knowing what the words mean, how it was not already inherently the case.
> What we can agree on, however, is that God (or the pre-natal endocrine environment, if you prefer) makes certain people different, and that those people should be able to participate in social institutions like marriage consistent with their biology.
Lol okay?
>On the other hand, if you want to force a debate on whether sexuality should be private or public, or whether individuals have social roles and be subject to social norms dictated by their biology, that is an entirely different fight, and it's one you don't want to have.
I don't want to force a debate on anything? I'm not sure why you seem to be incapable of having a conversation with me as opposed to some sort of globally disagreeable boogeyman you've invented on my behalf... I litereally asked you a simple question and rather than answer it, you came back telling me that I'm trying to force something? You put like 10 carts before your horse there...
"Consistent with their biology" is not a precondition that you could find broad agreement on - I don't think you could even find a broad agreement on what it means.
A big part of the problem, though, is that the extremist voices/views get amplified the loudest, and then get trotted out as a typical example of the "other" side. And thanks to modern communication, you can always find bizarre extremist voices to amplify, so it leads to this narrative that the extremist view is held by vast numbers of people when in reality the percentage of people who hold those views is effectively 0.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_nightclub_sho... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting
You'll also note that mainstream conservatives refused to condemn the Colorado Springs shooting and there has been no change in the rhetoric that encouraged it.
Sure, that's true. But it's always been true and, AFAICT, will always be true. But they are such a tiny number of the total population that they aren't the gatekeepers to progress on big social issues.
There is a tendency today to give people like that the spotlight and to paint everyone the slightest bit on the other side as being of the same ilk. Both of these things are mistakes that give those extremists power they couldn't otherwise get.
Backing up, the context here is the notion of finding some middle or common ground instead of splitting into warring tribes. When we fall into the trap of believing that the other side is full of people that look like the extremists on the other side, it eliminates the possibility of there being a middle ground. The result is a deeper divide, utter despair, a lack of progress on resolving issues, and often more people moving to the extremes.
OTOH, when we recognize that the extremists are in fact extremists (i.e. statistical outliers), it's empowering and hopeful. The distance between your views and those of the vast majority of people on the other side is actually much shorter than the distance between your views and those of their extremists (and even likely shorter than the distance between their views and the views of their extremists). It really is a bell curve; don't buy into the lie that it's an inverted one. There is an abundance of potential allies (including the main ones that have a real shot of deradicalizing some of those extremists), most of those other guys are pretty decent people, and real progress is plausible.
There's no middle ground between wanting to kill someone and wanting to let them live in peace. If a person thinks someone is a born child molester (a "groomer" in the modern Newspeak) and that person thinks the punishment for child molestation is death (as is fashionable in Florida of late) there's no way they can meet that person in the middle.
And that, sadly, is not new, either, as Matthew Shepard demonstrated so memorably in my own lifetime, but things are rather coming to a head now that sexual and gender minorities are forcing their longstanding plight into the public eye. They don't die quite as quietly now, in other words, and the great mass of people is more sympathetic to them now than it ever has been in the past. This, naturally, makes their would-be killers feel a bit persecuted.
> and like the use of stocks in medieval times the concept of cancellation is much more power than any reality.
Here we go, right on cue. The notion of being run out of employment for holding the traditional bigotries is a bit new, isn't it?