The gay rights movement has been hijacked by trans maximalism. Part of that movement was convincing society that the drugs and lobotomies to which homosexuals were subjected were not only morally wrong but misguided--we were not broken and did not need fixing. And now along comes gender ideology to argue the opposite.
And it doesn't even argue that coherently! In one breath, we are informed that being trans is a perfectly normal and natural human variation, like red hair or left-handedness. In the next, we are grimly warned that if the people who possess this perfectly normal and natural human variation do not receive drugs and surgery, they will kill themselves.
I used to go along with this nonsense because I thought it was part of the job of being a good person, but three years ago I handed in my notice and punched out my time card. Adults can do what they like with their own bodies, but we should all be clear that has nothing to do with being same-sex attracted. I'd like my movement back, please.
"The change marked a movement from themes of self-acceptance to those of self-hate, and from an atmosphere of positivity and hope to one of negativity and despair." Thank you for this sentence. It says everything. Wonderful piece.
> homosexuality is innate and that people could not be denied civil rights for being homosexual
But pedophilia is also innate and following the logic above, we are not surprised to find the pedos now coming out of the closet and demanding their 'rights'. Love is love, after all.
Maybe recent ‘research’ has tried to establish that pedophilia is innate, as pharmaceutical companies tried, and failed, to prove that depression was caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, and therefore, treatable with pills, instead of therapy.
Likewise someone or someones want to assert that pedophiles are born and not made. Who would want such a transition? What about people who want to reverse age of consent laws by lowering the age of consent to include children? If pedophilia is innate then such a law is humane, instead of immoral and predatory.
Right. Every itch must be scratched, yes? Everything innate must be celebrated, yes? For a few years the age of consent to buggery was kept higher than that for heterosex, but the gays had that leveled because it Discriminated. Dare we Discriminate against the pedo .... sorry I mean the Minor Attracted Persons?
I’ve never read of pedophiles demanding a special right. Their demand is that children be granted adult status which is not possible. Homosexuality, heterosexuality, pedophilia, narcissism, masochism are all mental states. How is the condition of two lmen who had been arrested for exercising the right of association in a gay bar equivalent to a pedophile demanding a child be treated as an adult?
> Their demand is that children be granted adult status which is not possible.
I don't think so. Their demand is that children be granted the right to choose to be buggered even as they might choose to have their genitals cut off. You have it exactly backwards. The claim is that you do not have to be an adult to be able to make the choice. The "only adults can consent" rule is already broken.
Is it not obvious? Pedophilia is still considered a crime and using the above logic that most obviously must change. And given that minors can now not only consent but even demand sexual mutilation it seems a very small step before we realize that they can also consent to sex itself.
Not by my lights, no. Feeling attraction is a mental state, which is beyond the law; attempting to form an inappropriation relationship with a child, who cannot give meaningful consent, is an action, which can absolutely be illegalized. So I don't find your point compelling.
You draw the correct distinction of course. But as I just said, if kids can consent to mutilation what can they *not* consent to? The consent doctrine is already mortally wounded.
13-year-old girl has such perfect, mature self-knowledge that she can have her breasts cut off, it’s difficult to argue she can’t choose to have sex with Roman Polanski.
XXactly! We're throwing out the last vestiges of patriarchal oppression and adding another stripe to the rainbow flag. What's not to like? Sad to say a few pedophobes are going to complain but we won't be listening to them. Indeed they should all be arrested. Haters! Love is *always* good.
No, I didn't suggest you did. But it does open the gateway to pedophilia which is another very good reason to resist it, as everyone here does. I'd say the same for drag queen story hour.
These identity based "communities" are fictions in service of politics and marketing. In both contexts, they falsely imply the existence of a monolithic constituency with common needs, struggles and objectives.
The progressive activist who invokes the "Queer community" is grasping for the political legitimacy he lacks as a result of not having been democratically elected. It's likely that the Queer activist is an unknown among most of the individuals he claims to speak for.
In any case, for all the bravado around the term "queer" these days, queer itself is really just an urban youth scene, a self-important posture and a learned set of attitudes and beliefs rooted in pernicious philosophical fictions about sex and sex roles. It's the liberal media who keep Queer alive with their drive to seem with-it and affirming. Otherwise, Queer would soon go the way of the Beatniks.
I’ve always thought that the “born this way” argument for accepting homosexuality was ultimately misleading and misguided. It implies that same-sex attraction would be morally wrong if we suddenly discovered that it wasn’t biologically based and innate, but freely chosen as a preference or even a whim. Yet who and what is actually being hurt here?The problem lay in using either God’s will or the “intention” of nature to guide our beliefs about right and wrong, instead of measuring our standards against the desire to avoid unnecessary harm. Homosexuality isn’t wrong because it isn’t wrong — it fails to meet the criteria for harm.
The case for Gay Rights then can still be made without the insistence that gay people “can’t help themselves” because sexual orientation is fixed at birth. But the case for Trans Rights absolutely requires the born this way narrative if they don’t want to be considered members of their sex.
All I know is that in about 1967, when other males my age (12-13) were becoming girl obsessed during puberty, I really had the (unrequited) hots for guys. Females did nothing for me even though the girls at my junior high wore miniskirts and fishnet stockings. On the day yearbooks were handed out, I surprised the heck out the wrestler a few lockers down from mine when I timidly asked him to sign mine.
There was no such thing as a "gay community" then, at least not in my suburb, and gay-straight alliances in schools and the practice of training pre-adolescent kids about gender were decades in the future. Furthermore, I didn't know anyone else whose sexuality was developing like mine and hadn't heard about such a phenomenon either.
Is it any wonder I and other gay men of my generation feel we were born this way? Or should I be looking to my passive father and dominant mother for the explanation? I think not.
Great article and thanks for all you do. I think the backlash is happening for sure. I personally get a sick feeling when I see a rainbow flag and I've lost any support I might have had for pride parades. I've been intrigued to see some insider critiques relating to gay men (sorry to turn immediately to men!) in relation to promiscuity, risk taking and predatory grooming of youth that show people have lost the 'arent we so liberal and progressive' feeling and are prepared to criticise gayness in the current age. The bigots will seize on this but also seems like a positive where people are calling out dysfunctional elements in the gay community. Of course all these things happen with heterosexual men as well so perhaps it's just becoming an integrated part of the community rather than a fringe. In some communities being overly sexualised in public is against the norm, for better or for worse, and gays themselves might even start to revolt against the current gay norms. I'm not gay though, so might be missing something.
If you're not already aware of Unyielding Bicyclist who writes Bad Facts she (also a lesbian) has some fascinating history to explore over that period, including the legal angle. In fact it's the second time today I've come across the Daughters of Bilitis.
Nice article but I’m still not sold on the validity of multiple sexualities. After all the blogs, vlogs, documentaries, debates, etc., I’m drawing nearer to the belief that there is only one sexuality and all the other forms of expression are derivatives (or rather deviations) of the original template. If it were not for our sexual organs and what they’re designed to do during sexual activity, I feel that would render sex as primarily or only an act of affection & intimacy. But because of our sexual organs, what they’re designed to do, and the life that they’ve given ALL of us, we established a different belief, as a society.
As time went on, the sexual revolution was introduced, and essentially using a constant redefining of sex by EVERYTHING else that sex provides while keeping the procreative principles secondary. This doesn’t make sense to me. If there exists a science proving that these multiple sexualities innately exist (and are NOT derived from forms of conditioning/environmental influence) then just showcase it so we can all be on the same page.
Otherwise we just focus on treating ppl equally based on principles of humanity not sexual identity.
This article misses the most important element of the "born this way" assumption. It removes human agency and insists that having a pattern of attractions and behaviors are as innate and immutable as skin color. This was codified through anti-discrimination laws so that anyone who fails to celebrate these behaviors is the equivalent of a racist. "Born This Way" provided the means for the rainbow lobby to persecute Barronelle Stutzman, Jack Phillips, and Gordon College.
Thank you Eva. I also live in Calgary but feel like I’m the only one in my social circle who is adequately concerned and aware of this.
I really struggle to praise anything Danielle Smith does, as the basis for most of her policies and positions seems to be ideology, not rational thought. Even this policy seemed more like a political move catering to her base than a compassionate protection for parents and trans-identified youth, which made it easier for her political opponents to frame it as an attack. So instead of inviting rational thought or reason into the discussion here in Alberta, it seemed to me that it sowed division on this topic.
That said, I support her proposed legislation around trans identified youth and their parents. It’s nice to know someone else who does too
As for "born this way" and whether science has proven a "gay gene". What science has proven with twin studies is that being gay has some genetic component. Twins who were raise apart were studied. If one twin was gay, the other twin had a higher probability of being gay also. Note it wasn't absolute. As a result, the study proves there is a genetic and nurture component. The current science hypothesis is that you have to have the "gay genetics" to be gay. You have to have the nurture to enable the "gay genetics". This is consistent with other human genetics.
As for gender dysphoria, there isn't sufficient science yet to have a hypothesis. The vocal trans community is pushing the "born this way in the wrong body" position for a number of reasons. From my study, it comes down to two:
a. societal acceptance - i.e. a trans-woman is a woman - this is understandable from their perspective. What's also understandable is that genetic women are suspect of a mischievous man using the "trans" story to gain access to the women's locker room. Also, not wanting to be around a person with men's genitals in the woman's locker room is also understandable. Not wanting to compete with a person who has transitioned to a woman but is genetically a man is also understandable. The issue is more complicated than the gay issue. The gay issue was mostly with men not wanting to be around other men who were "gay". Especially in locker rooms. The problem is still around today.
b. legal issues - especially for gender affirming surgery and treatment. If a person is "born with gender dysphoria", then technically they have a body that is broken and should be fixed by the healthcare system and identified as so by the legal system. I get that position.
What I'm not supportive of is saying there is a hard line between being gay and being queer. I believe many gay people would be more comfortable identifying as queer because the gay world has its own stereotypes that it promotes. If I don't fit into one of the stereotypes, what am I? I can be attracted to the same sex in many ways. I can also present as the opposite gender of my cis sex. Is that gay or a variant of gender or both?
I believe we all realize now including most str8 people that sexuality and gender have variations. There are dominant versions of them but because of genetics and environment many variations are possible.
The key is to not vilify. The example I have used in the vocal trans world is how they have vilified JK Rowling. When I press a vocal trans person to be specific on how JK Rowling is trans-phobic the best they can do is say she technically fears trans-woman. That statement is true - she fears a mischievous man posing as a trans-woman. Is that really transphobia?
The vocal trans community along with HRC (which right now I do not support because they don't care about my views) is not interested in a rationale discussion on the way forward. They have doubled down on a and b above. That is problematic for me and I believe most people. They are losing ground now. They as you site the position has also made people question the whole LGB acceptance including people who dress in drag.
I'll close with an example that I use many times to point out the hypocrisy of the LGBTQ+ movement in general. They are looking for some "acceptance" everywhere of who they want to be. I asked them a very pointed question. In the Castro in San Fran, people who are exhibitionists walk around naked. They are mostly str8 men. Exhibitionism is a sexuality. Whether it has genetic roots is unknown. If the LGBTQ+ world is supportive of all sexuality, they would support exhibitionism everywhere. In fact, Scott Wiener (Mr sell declared champion of the LGBTQ+ community) supported a law restricting the exhibitionists from walking around with their genitals uncovered. One of the many reasons I believe Scott Wiener is a self serving political hypocrite.
This is a great read.
The gay rights movement has been hijacked by trans maximalism. Part of that movement was convincing society that the drugs and lobotomies to which homosexuals were subjected were not only morally wrong but misguided--we were not broken and did not need fixing. And now along comes gender ideology to argue the opposite.
And it doesn't even argue that coherently! In one breath, we are informed that being trans is a perfectly normal and natural human variation, like red hair or left-handedness. In the next, we are grimly warned that if the people who possess this perfectly normal and natural human variation do not receive drugs and surgery, they will kill themselves.
I used to go along with this nonsense because I thought it was part of the job of being a good person, but three years ago I handed in my notice and punched out my time card. Adults can do what they like with their own bodies, but we should all be clear that has nothing to do with being same-sex attracted. I'd like my movement back, please.
"The change marked a movement from themes of self-acceptance to those of self-hate, and from an atmosphere of positivity and hope to one of negativity and despair." Thank you for this sentence. It says everything. Wonderful piece.
Nice piece. I didn’t grasp how far back the claim of “oppression” due to same-sex acceptance went.
Eva this is fantastic piece. So eminently reasonable, and calming to be reminded of the tolerant side of the rainbow.
> homosexuality is innate and that people could not be denied civil rights for being homosexual
But pedophilia is also innate and following the logic above, we are not surprised to find the pedos now coming out of the closet and demanding their 'rights'. Love is love, after all.
Maybe recent ‘research’ has tried to establish that pedophilia is innate, as pharmaceutical companies tried, and failed, to prove that depression was caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, and therefore, treatable with pills, instead of therapy.
Likewise someone or someones want to assert that pedophiles are born and not made. Who would want such a transition? What about people who want to reverse age of consent laws by lowering the age of consent to include children? If pedophilia is innate then such a law is humane, instead of immoral and predatory.
Right. Every itch must be scratched, yes? Everything innate must be celebrated, yes? For a few years the age of consent to buggery was kept higher than that for heterosex, but the gays had that leveled because it Discriminated. Dare we Discriminate against the pedo .... sorry I mean the Minor Attracted Persons?
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Heterosexuality is also innate, so does that mean heterosexuals are similar to pedophiles? Is that what you mean?
I mean that the 'innate' test is not the right one. Psychopathy is also innate.
I’ve never read of pedophiles demanding a special right. Their demand is that children be granted adult status which is not possible. Homosexuality, heterosexuality, pedophilia, narcissism, masochism are all mental states. How is the condition of two lmen who had been arrested for exercising the right of association in a gay bar equivalent to a pedophile demanding a child be treated as an adult?
> Their demand is that children be granted adult status which is not possible.
I don't think so. Their demand is that children be granted the right to choose to be buggered even as they might choose to have their genitals cut off. You have it exactly backwards. The claim is that you do not have to be an adult to be able to make the choice. The "only adults can consent" rule is already broken.
Pedophiles are completely protected under the same laws that protect all of us, and they have all the same rights and obligations we all have.
We also have the right to deny consent to sex.
What is the point you’re making of comparison?
Is it not obvious? Pedophilia is still considered a crime and using the above logic that most obviously must change. And given that minors can now not only consent but even demand sexual mutilation it seems a very small step before we realize that they can also consent to sex itself.
Not by my lights, no. Feeling attraction is a mental state, which is beyond the law; attempting to form an inappropriation relationship with a child, who cannot give meaningful consent, is an action, which can absolutely be illegalized. So I don't find your point compelling.
You draw the correct distinction of course. But as I just said, if kids can consent to mutilation what can they *not* consent to? The consent doctrine is already mortally wounded.
That is, if a
13-year-old girl has such perfect, mature self-knowledge that she can have her breasts cut off, it’s difficult to argue she can’t choose to have sex with Roman Polanski.
XXactly! We're throwing out the last vestiges of patriarchal oppression and adding another stripe to the rainbow flag. What's not to like? Sad to say a few pedophobes are going to complain but we won't be listening to them. Indeed they should all be arrested. Haters! Love is *always* good.
Sure, I'm not defending medicalizing children in that way. Not at all.
No, I didn't suggest you did. But it does open the gateway to pedophilia which is another very good reason to resist it, as everyone here does. I'd say the same for drag queen story hour.
"Queer community." LOL
These identity based "communities" are fictions in service of politics and marketing. In both contexts, they falsely imply the existence of a monolithic constituency with common needs, struggles and objectives.
The progressive activist who invokes the "Queer community" is grasping for the political legitimacy he lacks as a result of not having been democratically elected. It's likely that the Queer activist is an unknown among most of the individuals he claims to speak for.
In any case, for all the bravado around the term "queer" these days, queer itself is really just an urban youth scene, a self-important posture and a learned set of attitudes and beliefs rooted in pernicious philosophical fictions about sex and sex roles. It's the liberal media who keep Queer alive with their drive to seem with-it and affirming. Otherwise, Queer would soon go the way of the Beatniks.
I’ve always thought that the “born this way” argument for accepting homosexuality was ultimately misleading and misguided. It implies that same-sex attraction would be morally wrong if we suddenly discovered that it wasn’t biologically based and innate, but freely chosen as a preference or even a whim. Yet who and what is actually being hurt here?The problem lay in using either God’s will or the “intention” of nature to guide our beliefs about right and wrong, instead of measuring our standards against the desire to avoid unnecessary harm. Homosexuality isn’t wrong because it isn’t wrong — it fails to meet the criteria for harm.
The case for Gay Rights then can still be made without the insistence that gay people “can’t help themselves” because sexual orientation is fixed at birth. But the case for Trans Rights absolutely requires the born this way narrative if they don’t want to be considered members of their sex.
All I know is that in about 1967, when other males my age (12-13) were becoming girl obsessed during puberty, I really had the (unrequited) hots for guys. Females did nothing for me even though the girls at my junior high wore miniskirts and fishnet stockings. On the day yearbooks were handed out, I surprised the heck out the wrestler a few lockers down from mine when I timidly asked him to sign mine.
There was no such thing as a "gay community" then, at least not in my suburb, and gay-straight alliances in schools and the practice of training pre-adolescent kids about gender were decades in the future. Furthermore, I didn't know anyone else whose sexuality was developing like mine and hadn't heard about such a phenomenon either.
Is it any wonder I and other gay men of my generation feel we were born this way? Or should I be looking to my passive father and dominant mother for the explanation? I think not.
Great article and thanks for all you do. I think the backlash is happening for sure. I personally get a sick feeling when I see a rainbow flag and I've lost any support I might have had for pride parades. I've been intrigued to see some insider critiques relating to gay men (sorry to turn immediately to men!) in relation to promiscuity, risk taking and predatory grooming of youth that show people have lost the 'arent we so liberal and progressive' feeling and are prepared to criticise gayness in the current age. The bigots will seize on this but also seems like a positive where people are calling out dysfunctional elements in the gay community. Of course all these things happen with heterosexual men as well so perhaps it's just becoming an integrated part of the community rather than a fringe. In some communities being overly sexualised in public is against the norm, for better or for worse, and gays themselves might even start to revolt against the current gay norms. I'm not gay though, so might be missing something.
If you're not already aware of Unyielding Bicyclist who writes Bad Facts she (also a lesbian) has some fascinating history to explore over that period, including the legal angle. In fact it's the second time today I've come across the Daughters of Bilitis.
Nice article but I’m still not sold on the validity of multiple sexualities. After all the blogs, vlogs, documentaries, debates, etc., I’m drawing nearer to the belief that there is only one sexuality and all the other forms of expression are derivatives (or rather deviations) of the original template. If it were not for our sexual organs and what they’re designed to do during sexual activity, I feel that would render sex as primarily or only an act of affection & intimacy. But because of our sexual organs, what they’re designed to do, and the life that they’ve given ALL of us, we established a different belief, as a society.
As time went on, the sexual revolution was introduced, and essentially using a constant redefining of sex by EVERYTHING else that sex provides while keeping the procreative principles secondary. This doesn’t make sense to me. If there exists a science proving that these multiple sexualities innately exist (and are NOT derived from forms of conditioning/environmental influence) then just showcase it so we can all be on the same page.
Otherwise we just focus on treating ppl equally based on principles of humanity not sexual identity.
This article misses the most important element of the "born this way" assumption. It removes human agency and insists that having a pattern of attractions and behaviors are as innate and immutable as skin color. This was codified through anti-discrimination laws so that anyone who fails to celebrate these behaviors is the equivalent of a racist. "Born This Way" provided the means for the rainbow lobby to persecute Barronelle Stutzman, Jack Phillips, and Gordon College.
Thank you Eva. I also live in Calgary but feel like I’m the only one in my social circle who is adequately concerned and aware of this.
I really struggle to praise anything Danielle Smith does, as the basis for most of her policies and positions seems to be ideology, not rational thought. Even this policy seemed more like a political move catering to her base than a compassionate protection for parents and trans-identified youth, which made it easier for her political opponents to frame it as an attack. So instead of inviting rational thought or reason into the discussion here in Alberta, it seemed to me that it sowed division on this topic.
That said, I support her proposed legislation around trans identified youth and their parents. It’s nice to know someone else who does too
Great discussion.
As for "born this way" and whether science has proven a "gay gene". What science has proven with twin studies is that being gay has some genetic component. Twins who were raise apart were studied. If one twin was gay, the other twin had a higher probability of being gay also. Note it wasn't absolute. As a result, the study proves there is a genetic and nurture component. The current science hypothesis is that you have to have the "gay genetics" to be gay. You have to have the nurture to enable the "gay genetics". This is consistent with other human genetics.
As for gender dysphoria, there isn't sufficient science yet to have a hypothesis. The vocal trans community is pushing the "born this way in the wrong body" position for a number of reasons. From my study, it comes down to two:
a. societal acceptance - i.e. a trans-woman is a woman - this is understandable from their perspective. What's also understandable is that genetic women are suspect of a mischievous man using the "trans" story to gain access to the women's locker room. Also, not wanting to be around a person with men's genitals in the woman's locker room is also understandable. Not wanting to compete with a person who has transitioned to a woman but is genetically a man is also understandable. The issue is more complicated than the gay issue. The gay issue was mostly with men not wanting to be around other men who were "gay". Especially in locker rooms. The problem is still around today.
b. legal issues - especially for gender affirming surgery and treatment. If a person is "born with gender dysphoria", then technically they have a body that is broken and should be fixed by the healthcare system and identified as so by the legal system. I get that position.
What I'm not supportive of is saying there is a hard line between being gay and being queer. I believe many gay people would be more comfortable identifying as queer because the gay world has its own stereotypes that it promotes. If I don't fit into one of the stereotypes, what am I? I can be attracted to the same sex in many ways. I can also present as the opposite gender of my cis sex. Is that gay or a variant of gender or both?
I believe we all realize now including most str8 people that sexuality and gender have variations. There are dominant versions of them but because of genetics and environment many variations are possible.
The key is to not vilify. The example I have used in the vocal trans world is how they have vilified JK Rowling. When I press a vocal trans person to be specific on how JK Rowling is trans-phobic the best they can do is say she technically fears trans-woman. That statement is true - she fears a mischievous man posing as a trans-woman. Is that really transphobia?
The vocal trans community along with HRC (which right now I do not support because they don't care about my views) is not interested in a rationale discussion on the way forward. They have doubled down on a and b above. That is problematic for me and I believe most people. They are losing ground now. They as you site the position has also made people question the whole LGB acceptance including people who dress in drag.
I'll close with an example that I use many times to point out the hypocrisy of the LGBTQ+ movement in general. They are looking for some "acceptance" everywhere of who they want to be. I asked them a very pointed question. In the Castro in San Fran, people who are exhibitionists walk around naked. They are mostly str8 men. Exhibitionism is a sexuality. Whether it has genetic roots is unknown. If the LGBTQ+ world is supportive of all sexuality, they would support exhibitionism everywhere. In fact, Scott Wiener (Mr sell declared champion of the LGBTQ+ community) supported a law restricting the exhibitionists from walking around with their genitals uncovered. One of the many reasons I believe Scott Wiener is a self serving political hypocrite.