Thank you for this, and I look forward to reading your previous articles linked. Over time, it has become clear to me that many of my straight (D) friends have no clue what it is to be gay/lesbian. On reading your article about Rs, I think Rs have no clue either.
My own thought, on reading this, is that what really separates the Rs and Ds in thinking of the made-up LGBTQ-alphabet “community” is, for Rs: they are all deviant, while for Ds, they are all things Ds need to learn to accept as normative.
In reality, however, while LGB are and should remain accepted as normal variations of sexual orientation, normalizing the kinks and fetishes and accompanying mental disorders of which TQ+ seems to be comprised is inappropriate and often dangerous. If so, then the question is how to explain this succinctly to a D friend who has no clue (of which I have legion).
I am thinking that Helen Joyce put this well in a recent interview: “To me the difference between having a sexual orientation and a paraphilia is a sexual orientation is something that leads you toward what is potentially a fulfilling adult relationship. It’s why it’s fine to be gay, just like it’s fine to be straight. . . . We’re only going to take the word orientation to things that support healthy, consensual adult relationships, in which case pedophilia isn’t.”
Agree 100%. Republicans want to punish anything not normal, but the opposite instinct--to normalize EVERYTHING and expose children to it all--is just as bad. Most normal gays are just as disgusted by what's become of "their community" because of the TQ invasion.
It's part of our sick left-right pushme-pullyou politics, which won't end unless or until there's a generation-defining national crisis to pull us together again. COVID wasn't it--in fact, that just exacerbated the divisions, sadly.
Thank you, Susan; your response is so smart. One deflating aspect of being a gender-critical lesbian has, for me, been the realization that I assumed a level of critical thinking in straight allies I now realize does not reliably exist. For many, lesbians and gays are an alternative they don't understand but should accept, as a matter of being good progressives. Ditto, gender woo. They don't distinguish. "LGBTQ2s" unthinking crapola is analogous to BIPOC: There's us, and then there's everyone who's not us, an amorphous, indistinct "other." Straight progressives are driving unthinking acceptance of gender ideology, and -- I'm sad to say -- especially straight progressive women, who, being female, seem sadly eager to accommodate others (especially males), even at the expense of girls and women.
Cate, thank you so much for weighing in on this. Not only are YOUR comments also smart, I feel so much less alone knowing you have had such similar experiences. The BIPOC comparison is also excellent—right on point.
You're most welcome. I've just looked at some of the other recommendations on your Substack -- wide-ranging, fascinating -- and appreciate the exposure! I'm now immersed in Abigail Shrier's "Bad Therapy" -- she may be the best and bravest American journalist writing for a popular audience today -- so I won't say it's "traumatizing" to feel so abruptly set apart from one's former allies, who now appear to have lost their marbles. But it is isolating. Good, smart company is welcome.
"In reality, however, while LGB are and should remain accepted as normal variations of sexual orientation, normalizing the kinks and fetishes and accompanying mental disorders of which TQ+ seems to be comprised is inappropriate and often dangerous."
The "Q" half of the "TQ" pair isn't receiving the attention it deserves. Not by a long shot. Assuming for the sake of argument that gender dysphoria is real in at least some cases, "Queer" is the only cluster of attitudes, beliefs and behaviors in the conglomeration beginning with "LGB . . ." that is entirely learned, socially transmitted and based on a distinct set of canonical texts.
Queer is not a sexual orientation. It is not a gender identity. What it most definitely is is a scene with a low barrier to entry. No hormones, surgeries or homosex are required, though all are optional and highly desirable. In Queerdom, a person's look, attitude and record of adherence to orthodox views and behavior are just about everything.
That's why it is so risible when squares with liberal leanings who know nothing about Queers proclaim their support for "LGBTQ+ rights." If only a sex realist were present to ask them to elaborate on that thing they call "Queer rights." By definition Queer is not an immutable characteristic, placing queerness outside the scope civil rights laws intended to protect historically oppressed people who can't help being who and what they are. Though Queer's kissing cousin gender identity has many of the totalitarian and authoritarian qualities of a religion, it will be a cold day in hell before any court recognizes the Church of Queer. Queer theory becomes plain old politics (albeit of a highly toxic variety) when put into practice. Thankfully, no court has ever granted special protected status to a political movement over and above the civil liberties that the Constitution grants to all individuals in this nation. As for Queer scenesters who are in it for the hipness and transgressiveness of it all, it makes as much sense to grant them Queer rights as it would to grant the people who dress up on and about October 31 special Halloween rights.
While its easy to laugh off Queers as the asshats they are, they likely contribute significantly to the dissemination, defense and normalization of gender identity ideology and to the myth of the transsexual. That and the fact that most Democrats are likely to be as welcoming and inclusive of Queers as they are trans make Queers formidable adversaries for sex realists who are seeking to roll back the excesses of trans ideology.
Great point to focus on Q on its own. Love this observation “As for Queer scenesters who are in it for the hipness and transgressiveness of it all, it makes as much sense to grant them Queer rights as it would to grant the people who dress up on and about October 31 special Halloween rights.” So true, as in imagine enshrining the fad of torn jeans into law as a civil right.
Right because the D's have never persecuted a group before like say....Christians. Gotcha!
I worked in retail for 10 years, several in men's clothing so yeah I know a few gay men and all they want is teh same chance as everyone else without discrimination. They haven't sought special rights.
No group of any kind deserves rights different or special from another. We're all humans and yes some on teh R side, especially Christian Conservatives, have gone too far at times but need you be reminded it is the D's who are pushing censorship of speech if it's offensive and everyone in the world is offended by something. You say the R's are deviant, well from their perspective you are the deviant. How do we determine who's right? Without some belief to go by we can't so the only reasonable way to handle it is to say to each his own. The R's don't get to tell you how to live your life as long as you aren't violating anyone else's rights and you don't get to impose your beliefs on anyone else not interested in it.
Hi, NeverForget: ah, I see what I wrote may have been a little too shorthand! I was not meaning to say that Rs themselves are deviant, but rather that the R perception of the LGBTQ+ “community” was that it was deviant. Now that may not please you any better, but I just wanted to clarify what I had written to avoid an unintended misunderstanding. A side note to this is that many Ds who are straight I think are actually also squeamish (or worse) about anyone who is not straight, but papers it over. I think, as to this, Cate does an excellent job in her comment of parsing that issue.
"but rather that the R perception of the LGBTQ+ “community” was that it was deviant"
Whether it please me or not its definately clearer and you are not wrong about that. I grew up and still am right leaning but I'm more of a pro Constitutionalist than a traditional Republican. They tried their own censorship BS back in teh 80's when rap music took off; a genre that offended many on the Conservative Christian Right. They had the right to be offended but not to force that onto everyone else, not in America. I %100 stand by "I'll disagree with what you say but defend you're right to say it". I believe more D's at least those in office, don't care 2 cents about the people they claim to they just use those groups for power. The Republicans are not without sin in that regards either. After seeing for about 2 election cycles that the Republicans would promise xyz and not deliver on those after I realized that Congress is more like professional wrestling. The 2 opponents fight with each other on camera but off camera buddy up. Yes they each do have truly opposing takes on hot topics like abortion but the uni-party is definately a real thing. I even voted for Obama his 1st time just as an F-You t o the Republican party because I was so fed up with their lies; at least the majority. Their are good well meaning people in both parties but they do seem to be an every shrinking minority.
I also am very much anti-special rights to any group save for maybe minors. They do need to protected from adults who would do kids harm and that ranges across the political spectrum. There are no good parties in politics only good people.
Thank you again for your clarity. I feel like I see a lot of heterodox liberals feeling abandoned by the left and considering voting elsewhere because of the gender insanity. This is a clear list of why that is lazy thinking that they would be safe voting republican.
I'm one of these heterodox liberals who will be voting Republican in every down-ticket race I can, because my state is so heavily dominated by Democrats that it's the only way to send the message that they're screwing up. They need to be fired, and yes, if we elect a Republican majority (unlikely this year) we'll get a lot of bad nonsense, but maybe, just maybe we can stop kids from being transed behind their parents' backs and put an end to child sex-change drugs and surgeries.
When I moved here 20+ years ago, it was a R dominated state--Rs had every single office & the state house & senate majority. It was bad then, and it's bad when the other party dominates without any fear, too.
Please, people: There are options other than Harris or Trump. Do your homework; think outside the box. The Electoral College means it won't matter, practically, but as a matter of conscience, I'm voting RFK, Jr. He has not been seduced by gender woo and has otherwise palatable policy positions (https://www.kennedy24.com/policies) for people who haven't blindly accepted mainstream media's alternate smearing and ignoring of him. (Remember, these are the same people who describe sex as "assigned at birth," and declare legislation to protect vulnerable youth and female spaces "anti-LGBTQ." Why in the world would you trust them?)
I think the path to success here is to be very clear about what is and isn’t supported by the constitution and logic. Otherwise the accusations of “trans genocide” come out and confuse the issue.
As much as I hate the trans activism community and what it’s done to my child, I still have to put principles first.
In my personal opinion, adults have the right to dress and present themselves however they want. They also have the right to seek cosmetic medical treatments, although I believe any life-changing irreversible cosmetic medical treatment should require somewhat extensive counseling. They should not be subject to violence or discrimination.
However, biological sex is still reality, and does not change based on appearance. “Gender identity” is an ideological belief that law cannot be based on, and that others cannot be required to adhere to. It should not be possible to legally change your sex. You cannot use restrooms, changing rooms, or other single-sex facilities that are not for your biological sex. You cannot compete in sports that do not align with your physical sex (although you’re welcome to compete in your correct category and dress however you like while doing so). You cannot legally require others to refer or think of you as a certain sex, although many people may choose to do so out of politeness. Free speech on this topic may not be curtailed. Children absolutely must not be given any cosmetic medical treatments. Medical treatments should be classified as cosmetic and not covered by insurance or public medicine where other cosmetic procedures wouldn’t be. And the belief in “gender identity” cannot be taught in public schools or required by the government in any way - it’s an ideological belief, similar to believing in a religion.
I believe that if both sides of the debate were allowed to be heard equally, the media and doctors and therapists were allowed to speak the truth and debate the subject, this would mostly address the indoctrination of children.
This way we stick with principles - freedom of speech, freedom of belief, separation of church (I.e. a belief system with no basis in fact) and state. As much as part of me wants to make sure not another child is ever exposed to these harmful ideas, deep down I know that limiting others’ freedom of speech is not the answer. Even if I think that a person is doing something profoundly harmful to themselves, I have to support their right to do it if they are an adult
There are no Trans rights. There are no gay rights. There are human rights that must apply to all regardless of sex, sexual preference, faith, ethnicity, you name it. Gorsuch wrote that employers couldn’t fire workers for “being transgender” but avoided defining the term or mentioning gender identity because you shouldn't be firing workers for anything other than performance or something like cost cutting measures.
"In 1990 Jesse Helms, the notorious Republican senator from North Carolina, inserted language into the Americans with Disabilities Act bill to exclude trans-identified people from protection:"
So you would have preferred he say Trans people are disabled? If trans is to qualify as disabled it will be mentally which means it goes into the DSM. Is that really what you'd prefer? Or are you upset that those who want to live life as a different sex from what they were born as don't get preferential treatment like those who can't walk or who can't see? Claiming you were born in the wrong body is not equivent to either having some part of your body permanently disabled or being born with some disfigurement or missing limbs.
Once you create "X Groups" rights you lay the foundation for discrimination against those NOT in group X. I hope most of here are smarter than that.
Thank you for this, and I look forward to reading your previous articles linked. Over time, it has become clear to me that many of my straight (D) friends have no clue what it is to be gay/lesbian. On reading your article about Rs, I think Rs have no clue either.
My own thought, on reading this, is that what really separates the Rs and Ds in thinking of the made-up LGBTQ-alphabet “community” is, for Rs: they are all deviant, while for Ds, they are all things Ds need to learn to accept as normative.
In reality, however, while LGB are and should remain accepted as normal variations of sexual orientation, normalizing the kinks and fetishes and accompanying mental disorders of which TQ+ seems to be comprised is inappropriate and often dangerous. If so, then the question is how to explain this succinctly to a D friend who has no clue (of which I have legion).
I am thinking that Helen Joyce put this well in a recent interview: “To me the difference between having a sexual orientation and a paraphilia is a sexual orientation is something that leads you toward what is potentially a fulfilling adult relationship. It’s why it’s fine to be gay, just like it’s fine to be straight. . . . We’re only going to take the word orientation to things that support healthy, consensual adult relationships, in which case pedophilia isn’t.”
Any thoughts?
Sexual orientation is based in biology, specifically pheromone processing. Gender identity is socially constructed.
My post on the science and propaganda of sexual orientation: https://badfacts.substack.com/p/why-are-people-gay
Debunking the ACLU's lies about GI: https://badfacts.substack.com/p/the-aclus-big-lie
Agree 100%. Republicans want to punish anything not normal, but the opposite instinct--to normalize EVERYTHING and expose children to it all--is just as bad. Most normal gays are just as disgusted by what's become of "their community" because of the TQ invasion.
It's part of our sick left-right pushme-pullyou politics, which won't end unless or until there's a generation-defining national crisis to pull us together again. COVID wasn't it--in fact, that just exacerbated the divisions, sadly.
Thanks so much for weighing in, and with great, perceptive observations.
Thank you, Susan; your response is so smart. One deflating aspect of being a gender-critical lesbian has, for me, been the realization that I assumed a level of critical thinking in straight allies I now realize does not reliably exist. For many, lesbians and gays are an alternative they don't understand but should accept, as a matter of being good progressives. Ditto, gender woo. They don't distinguish. "LGBTQ2s" unthinking crapola is analogous to BIPOC: There's us, and then there's everyone who's not us, an amorphous, indistinct "other." Straight progressives are driving unthinking acceptance of gender ideology, and -- I'm sad to say -- especially straight progressive women, who, being female, seem sadly eager to accommodate others (especially males), even at the expense of girls and women.
Cate, thank you so much for weighing in on this. Not only are YOUR comments also smart, I feel so much less alone knowing you have had such similar experiences. The BIPOC comparison is also excellent—right on point.
You're most welcome. I've just looked at some of the other recommendations on your Substack -- wide-ranging, fascinating -- and appreciate the exposure! I'm now immersed in Abigail Shrier's "Bad Therapy" -- she may be the best and bravest American journalist writing for a popular audience today -- so I won't say it's "traumatizing" to feel so abruptly set apart from one's former allies, who now appear to have lost their marbles. But it is isolating. Good, smart company is welcome.
Helen Joyce is Brilliant!
"In reality, however, while LGB are and should remain accepted as normal variations of sexual orientation, normalizing the kinks and fetishes and accompanying mental disorders of which TQ+ seems to be comprised is inappropriate and often dangerous."
The "Q" half of the "TQ" pair isn't receiving the attention it deserves. Not by a long shot. Assuming for the sake of argument that gender dysphoria is real in at least some cases, "Queer" is the only cluster of attitudes, beliefs and behaviors in the conglomeration beginning with "LGB . . ." that is entirely learned, socially transmitted and based on a distinct set of canonical texts.
Queer is not a sexual orientation. It is not a gender identity. What it most definitely is is a scene with a low barrier to entry. No hormones, surgeries or homosex are required, though all are optional and highly desirable. In Queerdom, a person's look, attitude and record of adherence to orthodox views and behavior are just about everything.
That's why it is so risible when squares with liberal leanings who know nothing about Queers proclaim their support for "LGBTQ+ rights." If only a sex realist were present to ask them to elaborate on that thing they call "Queer rights." By definition Queer is not an immutable characteristic, placing queerness outside the scope civil rights laws intended to protect historically oppressed people who can't help being who and what they are. Though Queer's kissing cousin gender identity has many of the totalitarian and authoritarian qualities of a religion, it will be a cold day in hell before any court recognizes the Church of Queer. Queer theory becomes plain old politics (albeit of a highly toxic variety) when put into practice. Thankfully, no court has ever granted special protected status to a political movement over and above the civil liberties that the Constitution grants to all individuals in this nation. As for Queer scenesters who are in it for the hipness and transgressiveness of it all, it makes as much sense to grant them Queer rights as it would to grant the people who dress up on and about October 31 special Halloween rights.
While its easy to laugh off Queers as the asshats they are, they likely contribute significantly to the dissemination, defense and normalization of gender identity ideology and to the myth of the transsexual. That and the fact that most Democrats are likely to be as welcoming and inclusive of Queers as they are trans make Queers formidable adversaries for sex realists who are seeking to roll back the excesses of trans ideology.
Great point to focus on Q on its own. Love this observation “As for Queer scenesters who are in it for the hipness and transgressiveness of it all, it makes as much sense to grant them Queer rights as it would to grant the people who dress up on and about October 31 special Halloween rights.” So true, as in imagine enshrining the fad of torn jeans into law as a civil right.
Right because the D's have never persecuted a group before like say....Christians. Gotcha!
I worked in retail for 10 years, several in men's clothing so yeah I know a few gay men and all they want is teh same chance as everyone else without discrimination. They haven't sought special rights.
No group of any kind deserves rights different or special from another. We're all humans and yes some on teh R side, especially Christian Conservatives, have gone too far at times but need you be reminded it is the D's who are pushing censorship of speech if it's offensive and everyone in the world is offended by something. You say the R's are deviant, well from their perspective you are the deviant. How do we determine who's right? Without some belief to go by we can't so the only reasonable way to handle it is to say to each his own. The R's don't get to tell you how to live your life as long as you aren't violating anyone else's rights and you don't get to impose your beliefs on anyone else not interested in it.
Hi, NeverForget: ah, I see what I wrote may have been a little too shorthand! I was not meaning to say that Rs themselves are deviant, but rather that the R perception of the LGBTQ+ “community” was that it was deviant. Now that may not please you any better, but I just wanted to clarify what I had written to avoid an unintended misunderstanding. A side note to this is that many Ds who are straight I think are actually also squeamish (or worse) about anyone who is not straight, but papers it over. I think, as to this, Cate does an excellent job in her comment of parsing that issue.
"but rather that the R perception of the LGBTQ+ “community” was that it was deviant"
Whether it please me or not its definately clearer and you are not wrong about that. I grew up and still am right leaning but I'm more of a pro Constitutionalist than a traditional Republican. They tried their own censorship BS back in teh 80's when rap music took off; a genre that offended many on the Conservative Christian Right. They had the right to be offended but not to force that onto everyone else, not in America. I %100 stand by "I'll disagree with what you say but defend you're right to say it". I believe more D's at least those in office, don't care 2 cents about the people they claim to they just use those groups for power. The Republicans are not without sin in that regards either. After seeing for about 2 election cycles that the Republicans would promise xyz and not deliver on those after I realized that Congress is more like professional wrestling. The 2 opponents fight with each other on camera but off camera buddy up. Yes they each do have truly opposing takes on hot topics like abortion but the uni-party is definately a real thing. I even voted for Obama his 1st time just as an F-You t o the Republican party because I was so fed up with their lies; at least the majority. Their are good well meaning people in both parties but they do seem to be an every shrinking minority.
I also am very much anti-special rights to any group save for maybe minors. They do need to protected from adults who would do kids harm and that ranges across the political spectrum. There are no good parties in politics only good people.
Thank you again for your clarity. I feel like I see a lot of heterodox liberals feeling abandoned by the left and considering voting elsewhere because of the gender insanity. This is a clear list of why that is lazy thinking that they would be safe voting republican.
I'm one of these heterodox liberals who will be voting Republican in every down-ticket race I can, because my state is so heavily dominated by Democrats that it's the only way to send the message that they're screwing up. They need to be fired, and yes, if we elect a Republican majority (unlikely this year) we'll get a lot of bad nonsense, but maybe, just maybe we can stop kids from being transed behind their parents' backs and put an end to child sex-change drugs and surgeries.
When I moved here 20+ years ago, it was a R dominated state--Rs had every single office & the state house & senate majority. It was bad then, and it's bad when the other party dominates without any fear, too.
Please, people: There are options other than Harris or Trump. Do your homework; think outside the box. The Electoral College means it won't matter, practically, but as a matter of conscience, I'm voting RFK, Jr. He has not been seduced by gender woo and has otherwise palatable policy positions (https://www.kennedy24.com/policies) for people who haven't blindly accepted mainstream media's alternate smearing and ignoring of him. (Remember, these are the same people who describe sex as "assigned at birth," and declare legislation to protect vulnerable youth and female spaces "anti-LGBTQ." Why in the world would you trust them?)
I think the path to success here is to be very clear about what is and isn’t supported by the constitution and logic. Otherwise the accusations of “trans genocide” come out and confuse the issue.
As much as I hate the trans activism community and what it’s done to my child, I still have to put principles first.
In my personal opinion, adults have the right to dress and present themselves however they want. They also have the right to seek cosmetic medical treatments, although I believe any life-changing irreversible cosmetic medical treatment should require somewhat extensive counseling. They should not be subject to violence or discrimination.
However, biological sex is still reality, and does not change based on appearance. “Gender identity” is an ideological belief that law cannot be based on, and that others cannot be required to adhere to. It should not be possible to legally change your sex. You cannot use restrooms, changing rooms, or other single-sex facilities that are not for your biological sex. You cannot compete in sports that do not align with your physical sex (although you’re welcome to compete in your correct category and dress however you like while doing so). You cannot legally require others to refer or think of you as a certain sex, although many people may choose to do so out of politeness. Free speech on this topic may not be curtailed. Children absolutely must not be given any cosmetic medical treatments. Medical treatments should be classified as cosmetic and not covered by insurance or public medicine where other cosmetic procedures wouldn’t be. And the belief in “gender identity” cannot be taught in public schools or required by the government in any way - it’s an ideological belief, similar to believing in a religion.
I believe that if both sides of the debate were allowed to be heard equally, the media and doctors and therapists were allowed to speak the truth and debate the subject, this would mostly address the indoctrination of children.
This way we stick with principles - freedom of speech, freedom of belief, separation of church (I.e. a belief system with no basis in fact) and state. As much as part of me wants to make sure not another child is ever exposed to these harmful ideas, deep down I know that limiting others’ freedom of speech is not the answer. Even if I think that a person is doing something profoundly harmful to themselves, I have to support their right to do it if they are an adult
Fighting the genderborg is never as simple as waving a partisan flag.
There are no Trans rights. There are no gay rights. There are human rights that must apply to all regardless of sex, sexual preference, faith, ethnicity, you name it. Gorsuch wrote that employers couldn’t fire workers for “being transgender” but avoided defining the term or mentioning gender identity because you shouldn't be firing workers for anything other than performance or something like cost cutting measures.
"In 1990 Jesse Helms, the notorious Republican senator from North Carolina, inserted language into the Americans with Disabilities Act bill to exclude trans-identified people from protection:"
So you would have preferred he say Trans people are disabled? If trans is to qualify as disabled it will be mentally which means it goes into the DSM. Is that really what you'd prefer? Or are you upset that those who want to live life as a different sex from what they were born as don't get preferential treatment like those who can't walk or who can't see? Claiming you were born in the wrong body is not equivent to either having some part of your body permanently disabled or being born with some disfigurement or missing limbs.
Once you create "X Groups" rights you lay the foundation for discrimination against those NOT in group X. I hope most of here are smarter than that.
Brilliant as ever, UB!