"The tactic of force-teaming gay and trans issues is copied from trans activists and it serves their interests. As a matter of propaganda, they want everyone to associate gay and trans."
I remain flummoxed and angered by the seeming inability of (mostly straight, mostly progressive) people to distinguish between sexual orientation and "gender identity." The latter is a circular, subjective concept so nebulous that proponents won't even define terms, which would, of course, reveal a preposterous ideology they would then have to defend.
Is it that hard for progressives -- who once supported women's rights and gay rights -- to think about gender ideology, identify its dubious underpinnings and see how it harms both females and gay people (especially kids)? It doesn't take that much effort. I've come to think they don't want to, that embracing trans activism is part of a larger dogma from which they will not deviate, fearing excommunication from the church of "woke." They are fully as tribal and undiscriminating as the MAGA crowd they loathe.
Thanks for another helpful explainer. I always learn from your efforts.
Thanks for posting this article, Glenna. The difficulty with legislating any kind of therapy is that involves a government regulator being inserted into the client-therapist relationship, in a way which would not be permitted to negate client-attorney privilege. I believe laws against coercion or torture could be applied to unethical 'therapists' without the state attempting to regulate fluid sexuality.
For example, if a married man goes to a therapist seeking support to address his self-destructive behaviour, which includes drug and alcohol abuse and hooking up with random sexual partners, should government intervene to prevent his therapist changing the patient's sexual expression? Does it actually matter whether the patient is ostensibly 'straight' when married and the hook-ups 'gay', versus the other way around?
The likely effect of regulating therapy with criminal sanctions is that fewer good therapists will be willing to take on clients from the LGB community. It only takes one accusation to derail a career.
Yes, there are lots of legitimate questions about whether it's practical or wise to regulate SOCE. I didn't get into them because the post was already too long. But I think a fraud lens is helpful.
Thanks for your reply. The irony is that we have activists in every institution, including schools, attempting to persuade young people to live queerly. They would of course argue that this is not a sexual orientation change effort, and yet the percentage of people reporting membership of the community has risen significantly.
I twisted myself into pretzels trying to find a way to support her before the 10th Circuit because I want therapists to be able to talk kids out of their "gender identities." But I couldn't do it, for all the reasons you explain so well here.
Glenna, thank you for writing such a clear explanation of this. This is very helpful and a good reminder we need to separate SO from GI whenever we can make the point.
Democratic representatives in Colorado, led by a gay governor, are shamefully obedient to trans activists and -- predictably and thoughtlessly -- spout the "LGBTQ+" nonsense. A bill that requires a death certificate to record the deceased's "gender identity" rather than sex -- forcing public officials to lie and distorting vital statistics -- awaits the governor's signature, a foregone conclusion. Another bill now making its way through the Statehouse would compromise the child custody rights of parents who don't affirm gender dysphoric kids and prohibit "deadnaming" or "misgendering" in public accommodations. Of course, boys are in girls' sports and men in women's bathrooms.
I'm far more ashamed of my state now than when it was majority conservative and I was fighting for gay rights in the '80s, '90s and aughts.
A lot of us saw this coming and knew that working with the right would tank any progressive that actual progressives wanted to have in the realm of gender ideology.
It has saddened me a lot to see so many people I thought were progressives go along with a lot of horrible things coming out of the Republican Party right now because they agree on the trans issue.
I would argue that progressives and conservatives don’t actually agree on the trans issue at all. Trans ideology is a conservative ideology.
I agree that ADF and its ilk could really hurt us. But the world is a messy place. I don't think the entire right is in thrall to ADF. Working with the right seems to be paying off in some ways.
May Mailman publicly credited Kara Dansky with shaping her thinking when she worked on executive orders. The HHS Review sounds nothing like an ADF brief. It actually talks about gay people, criticizes gender identity (ADF doesn't!), places an ethical responsibility on doctors, implies that adult transition is problematic, etc.
It is unfortunate when people abandon all their lefty ideals just because of gender. I think most people need to feel like they're part of a tribe and nowadays you can only belong if you adopt *all* of the tribe's beliefs.
The issue is that just like the left at this point the right will not stand up to its most extreme as we see with Trump. So I think there is danger in working with them. For me it’s more about strategy for the long run. What group of people must we win over to change this mess? The left, the progressive voters. Working with the right shoots us in the foot. We loose what little credibility we had with our own people. And yes, I’ve heard the argument that you shouldn’t be guilty by association but that’s the way it works.
I have changed my mind on how to fight back against gender ideology. I don’t think it’s won though legislation, especially if legislation is backed by the right. I believe this is won by time and slowly winning people over.
The good thing about being offline for while is you spend more time in the world talking to people in person and I’ve become more convinced by my conversations with progressives that working in anyway with the right destroys our goals.
I am only on substack btw. I remain offline everywhere else.
To be perfectly grounded in historical reality, how can anyone see any difference whatsoever in religion and psychology…particularly talk therapy? They’re both based on made up woo woo and their prescriptions and proscriptions change based solely on fiat, votes, cultural trends, and most importantly, capacity for monetary exploitation. We would all do well to leave religion and psychology well in the rear view mirror.
I'm working on a series of articles for Genspect on this exact topic. I believe talking therapies have potential to help people, but they have significant psychosexual and Gnostic baggage that they need to discard if they are to help rather than hinder patients with gender distress. It's not a coincidence that gender clinics have a Freudian/Jungian origin.
Why are Christians obsessed with homosexuality? There aren’t just historical contradictions in the bible. It’s rife with ideological ones as well, it would seem. It doesn’t seem like a coherent philosophy, if you incorporate a lack of acceptance for someone for who they are in a religion that espouses universal love.
My guess is that if you're living in the desert and Romans want to feed you to lions, your new religion is going to prohibit any activity which doesn't result in the growth of the tribe.
Glenna, how does one get in touch with you? It seems that there's a real need for a coalition that approaches this with clear sight about homosexuality, in the legal arena. Those funding the GC fight back globally are not necessarily the best allies in this respect... how does one get past this.
"The tactic of force-teaming gay and trans issues is copied from trans activists and it serves their interests. As a matter of propaganda, they want everyone to associate gay and trans."
I remain flummoxed and angered by the seeming inability of (mostly straight, mostly progressive) people to distinguish between sexual orientation and "gender identity." The latter is a circular, subjective concept so nebulous that proponents won't even define terms, which would, of course, reveal a preposterous ideology they would then have to defend.
Is it that hard for progressives -- who once supported women's rights and gay rights -- to think about gender ideology, identify its dubious underpinnings and see how it harms both females and gay people (especially kids)? It doesn't take that much effort. I've come to think they don't want to, that embracing trans activism is part of a larger dogma from which they will not deviate, fearing excommunication from the church of "woke." They are fully as tribal and undiscriminating as the MAGA crowd they loathe.
Thanks for another helpful explainer. I always learn from your efforts.
Thanks for posting this article, Glenna. The difficulty with legislating any kind of therapy is that involves a government regulator being inserted into the client-therapist relationship, in a way which would not be permitted to negate client-attorney privilege. I believe laws against coercion or torture could be applied to unethical 'therapists' without the state attempting to regulate fluid sexuality.
For example, if a married man goes to a therapist seeking support to address his self-destructive behaviour, which includes drug and alcohol abuse and hooking up with random sexual partners, should government intervene to prevent his therapist changing the patient's sexual expression? Does it actually matter whether the patient is ostensibly 'straight' when married and the hook-ups 'gay', versus the other way around?
The likely effect of regulating therapy with criminal sanctions is that fewer good therapists will be willing to take on clients from the LGB community. It only takes one accusation to derail a career.
Yes, there are lots of legitimate questions about whether it's practical or wise to regulate SOCE. I didn't get into them because the post was already too long. But I think a fraud lens is helpful.
Thanks for your reply. The irony is that we have activists in every institution, including schools, attempting to persuade young people to live queerly. They would of course argue that this is not a sexual orientation change effort, and yet the percentage of people reporting membership of the community has risen significantly.
I twisted myself into pretzels trying to find a way to support her before the 10th Circuit because I want therapists to be able to talk kids out of their "gender identities." But I couldn't do it, for all the reasons you explain so well here.
I have to say, I find the humor hilarious and never of bad taste - even though the article treats difficult topics.
Glenna, thank you for writing such a clear explanation of this. This is very helpful and a good reminder we need to separate SO from GI whenever we can make the point.
Democratic representatives in Colorado, led by a gay governor, are shamefully obedient to trans activists and -- predictably and thoughtlessly -- spout the "LGBTQ+" nonsense. A bill that requires a death certificate to record the deceased's "gender identity" rather than sex -- forcing public officials to lie and distorting vital statistics -- awaits the governor's signature, a foregone conclusion. Another bill now making its way through the Statehouse would compromise the child custody rights of parents who don't affirm gender dysphoric kids and prohibit "deadnaming" or "misgendering" in public accommodations. Of course, boys are in girls' sports and men in women's bathrooms.
I'm far more ashamed of my state now than when it was majority conservative and I was fighting for gay rights in the '80s, '90s and aughts.
A lot of us saw this coming and knew that working with the right would tank any progressive that actual progressives wanted to have in the realm of gender ideology.
It has saddened me a lot to see so many people I thought were progressives go along with a lot of horrible things coming out of the Republican Party right now because they agree on the trans issue.
I would argue that progressives and conservatives don’t actually agree on the trans issue at all. Trans ideology is a conservative ideology.
I agree that ADF and its ilk could really hurt us. But the world is a messy place. I don't think the entire right is in thrall to ADF. Working with the right seems to be paying off in some ways.
May Mailman publicly credited Kara Dansky with shaping her thinking when she worked on executive orders. The HHS Review sounds nothing like an ADF brief. It actually talks about gay people, criticizes gender identity (ADF doesn't!), places an ethical responsibility on doctors, implies that adult transition is problematic, etc.
It is unfortunate when people abandon all their lefty ideals just because of gender. I think most people need to feel like they're part of a tribe and nowadays you can only belong if you adopt *all* of the tribe's beliefs.
Good to see you back online!
The issue is that just like the left at this point the right will not stand up to its most extreme as we see with Trump. So I think there is danger in working with them. For me it’s more about strategy for the long run. What group of people must we win over to change this mess? The left, the progressive voters. Working with the right shoots us in the foot. We loose what little credibility we had with our own people. And yes, I’ve heard the argument that you shouldn’t be guilty by association but that’s the way it works.
I have changed my mind on how to fight back against gender ideology. I don’t think it’s won though legislation, especially if legislation is backed by the right. I believe this is won by time and slowly winning people over.
The good thing about being offline for while is you spend more time in the world talking to people in person and I’ve become more convinced by my conversations with progressives that working in anyway with the right destroys our goals.
I am only on substack btw. I remain offline everywhere else.
Thanks for this, Glenna. (Suggested edit: tell the reader that “SOCE” stands for “sexual orientation change efforts” upon its first instance.)
Edited, thanks!
Yes, good idea. I read back in the article looking for that first reference, could not find it and went to AI (horrors!) for clarity.
To be perfectly grounded in historical reality, how can anyone see any difference whatsoever in religion and psychology…particularly talk therapy? They’re both based on made up woo woo and their prescriptions and proscriptions change based solely on fiat, votes, cultural trends, and most importantly, capacity for monetary exploitation. We would all do well to leave religion and psychology well in the rear view mirror.
I'm working on a series of articles for Genspect on this exact topic. I believe talking therapies have potential to help people, but they have significant psychosexual and Gnostic baggage that they need to discard if they are to help rather than hinder patients with gender distress. It's not a coincidence that gender clinics have a Freudian/Jungian origin.
I look forward to reading those. Any idea when you will release them?
Thanks, the publication date is up to Genspect but the first part could come out in a week or so.
Why are Christians obsessed with homosexuality? There aren’t just historical contradictions in the bible. It’s rife with ideological ones as well, it would seem. It doesn’t seem like a coherent philosophy, if you incorporate a lack of acceptance for someone for who they are in a religion that espouses universal love.
My guess is that if you're living in the desert and Romans want to feed you to lions, your new religion is going to prohibit any activity which doesn't result in the growth of the tribe.
Glenna, how does one get in touch with you? It seems that there's a real need for a coalition that approaches this with clear sight about homosexuality, in the legal arena. Those funding the GC fight back globally are not necessarily the best allies in this respect... how does one get past this.
This is very helpful Glenna.