June 17, 2019

"I’m sad to report that three or four decades ago, many gay-assertive people (myself included) looked at some of those who identified as bisexual with suspicion..."

"... if not scorn. It wasn’t because we didn’t believe that many were telling the truth about their experience. It was because so many people that I, for one, knew actually identified as gay had been exploiting the 'bi' term as a sexual caveat to avoid the risks of coming out completely. Or, at the very least, they were taking the term on loan as a baby step in that direction.... When celebrities whom everyone knew to be gay—but who hadn’t affirmed it in the media—were asked about such things, they tended to deliver exactly the kinds of statements we hear from some LGBTQ people today. They’d say, 'I don’t want to be labeled,' or 'I’m just sexual,' or 'I’m open.' Today, those descriptions signal broad-mindedness. Back then, they felt like a betrayal, a hedging that pushed the movement back a step, making those of us who had come out feel more isolated and vulnerable at a time when being out had far greater consequence.... If nearly any progressively minded person can find some way to identify as queer, what, exactly, does the term even mean? When I hear about fluidity in that context, it sounds like something made to wash away gay history—my history—drowning it in inclusiveness to broaden its clout."

From "Categorically Gay/For queer people who grew up in an era when rigid identities were essential, today’s fluidity can feel like their history is washing out with the tide" by Jim Farber (in Slate).

Drowning it in inclusiveness to broaden its clout — an interesting phrase. The metaphor is a little overambitious. You've got the water of "fluidity" and it's "washing away" and "drowning," but it's also designed to have "clout." A "clout" is something done with a fist or a hard object. "Fluidity" doesn't deliver "clout."

I'm just talking about whether the metaphor is good, not saying I can't puzzle out the meaning. Bear with me a little longer.

In the phrase, what's getting washed away and drowned is gay history, but the clout has a different target. The clout is to — what? — all the forces of heteronormativity (or something like that). There's too much going on there.

But I can see what he means. Broadening is weakening. Inclusiveness is diluting.

164 comments:

mezzrow said...

Tell a tsumani it doesn't have clout.

rhhardin said...

Gender fluidity isn't necessarily described by the Navier Stokes equations. It might be a gas, requiring a Boltzman equation (more than one velocity at one position).

SDaly said...

Three or four decades ago? Try three or four hours ago. Why is the author trying to paint gay-assertive skepticism of bisexuality as something that was "decades ago"?

buwaya said...

Whatever.
All of these are just symptoms of the ongoing self-destruction of humanity.
Man is an animal. The most fundamental failure is an inability to succeed as a natural creature.

Nonapod said...

drowning it in inclusiveness to broaden its clout

That's one of the biggest problems with the victim heirarchy implied in identity politics. If everyone desires to be a victim, the more "legitimate" victims can feel jaded. There's a fear of a loss of specialness. Some people like the idea of being unique, to have a story, a struggle that they had overcome, something that they feel they've earned.

As Syndrome said "And when everyone's super, no-one will be."

Darkisland said...

"California just made homosexuality legal. In another 20 years it will be mandatory"


Why the Hell are people trying to make me care about this. You're gay? Great. Whatever turns you on.

It's not some accomplishment.

It's just something you choose to do.

John Henry

Darkisland said...

The quote was Bob Hope, I think, back in the 80s.

John Henry

Krumhorn said...

He wants to be speshule. When someone wants to go [[clap]]. [[clap]]. PAR-TAY!, he wants it clear that asstrolube will be involved

- Krumhorn

bagoh20 said...

I think anyone so obsessed with who people sleep with, and who also considers who he sleeps with to be his defining characteristic is too trivial, unserious, and distracted to be President. It might also be why he's done so little for the city where he was elected mayor.

Char Char Binks said...

I identify as bicameral.

Robert Cook said...

Hmmm. Jim Farber is or once was a rock music critic. I had a roommate years ago who knew him, and he once visited our apartment.

Jersey Fled said...

As a white, male, Christian heterosexual I'm way down on the "special" list.

And I'm OK with that.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

I’ve written it before but it bears repeating: there is no LBGTQ coalition. Ls and Gs hate the Ts and nobody trusts the Bs, because most of them are actually lying about their L B or T status. The coalition is a myth. The rainbow flag is a lie. Probably waved by the same know-nothings that plaster “co-exist” bumpers stickers in their cars.

Fernandistein said...

For queer people with rigid identities washing out with the tide of inclusiveness and a bunch of etc -

Mum and lesbian lover tear off 9-year-old son’s penis then behead him [a year later] ‘as he reminded her of her dad’

In a gory twist, they are also accused of tearing off Cândido’s son Rhuan’s penis a year ago during horrifying home-made surgery.

The two women are said to have told investigators they used “rudimentary tools” because Rhuan "wanted to become a girl.”

Local reports say: “After removing his penis, the women said they sewed an improvised version of the female organ onto the mutilated area.”

+++

Fernandistein said...

I identify as bicameral.

Two humps?

Robert Cook said...

"Whatever.
"All of these are just symptoms of the ongoing self-destruction of humanity.
Man is an animal. The most fundamental failure is an inability to succeed as a natural creature."


Buwaya,

I generally find your comments apt and intelligent, even when I disagree with you. However, I find this comment of yours incomprehensible. What is it you're saying? Are you saying that gay or bi-sexual humans are destructive of humanity, that they are not "natural creatures?" Are you aware that non-human animals that display homosexual behavior, and some non-human animals can be both male or female. It seems "natural creatures" show an array of fluid behaviors and/or states of being.

Otto said...

Article is about sh*t by a blogger who loves to look into sh*t but trolls us with word study.

mccullough said...

The problem then and now is that people think if it’s not an immutable trait then it can be changed. Just like religion or politics.

Fluidity implies choice.

It is unfair (maybe even “deeply” unfair) to those with the immutable trait.

Char Char Binks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Krumhorn said...

He resent the efforts to strike off the heads of the tall poppies.

- Krumhorn

Nonapod said...

I identify as bicameral.

Two humps?


I think he means two types of caramel: hard (Werther’s Originals) and soft (Kraft Caramel Squares).

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

It seems "natural creatures" show an array of fluid behaviors and/or states of being.

Fluid? You’re full of shit. Name one animal other than Man who thinks it can, or in fact can, change their sex at will.

Robert Cook said...

"Name one animal other than Man who thinks it can, or in fact can, change their sex at will."

Natural creatures.

This is just one of several links I found in an instant.

buwaya said...

I am saying that these people are victims of the ongoing destruction.

Unknown said...

@buwaya:

Man is an animal. The most fundamental failure is an inability to succeed as a natural creature.

What does it mean to succeed as a natural creature other than passing ones genes on?

In related news, fake black lady Rachel Dolezal comes out as bisexual.

J. Farmer said...

p.s. Unknown is me. Wasn't signed in properly to Blogger before posting that comment.

Lucid-Ideas said...

There's a book by a prominent lesbian called The Disappearing "L" where she talks about the same thing.

Autophagy. Gay or lesbian isn't queer enough anymore. You're left out unless you're a dog-fucking pansexual that identifies as a pyro-fox with a fur fetish.

I have no sympathy. These people opened pandora's box and let depravity not seen since the days of Emperor Elagabalus in. We actually didn't care what you did in the privacy of your own bedroom as long as it was kept PRIVATE. That just wasn't enough apparently.

Kinksters being marginalized by kinksters. Make like a gender-fluid tree and disappear.

Robert Cook said...

"I am saying that these people are victims of the ongoing destruction."

Well...we all are.

Narr said...

Brings to my mind Burgess's The Wanting Seed, and a dash of Le Guin's Left Hand of Darkness.

The fluidity discussion, I mean; the author seems utterly conventional in his desire to identify himself, and equally conventional in his desire to have others identify as he wants them to. Gliberation for me, but not for thee.

Narr
Some pretty good puns here this morning

Fernandistein said...

I think he means two types of caramel

Good, because you can catch bactrial diseases from two-hump camerals.

Lucid-Ideas said...

@Darkisland

"Why the Hell are people trying to make me care about this. You're gay? Great. Whatever turns you on."

The elephant in the room is that - if you've ever known or observed gay people - as a population there are serious (and I mean very serious) self-esteem and confidence psychological issues. Consequently, for such people there is a need for constant attention and drama (duh) and they also tend to invent things or perceptions that actually don't exist. It's a persecuted mindset. There an anger 'undercurrent' in that community, and a lot of desire for revenge for perceived wrongs.

That's why you'll be made to bake that cake...

buwaya said...

"What does it mean to succeed as a natural creature other than passing ones genes on?"

Exactly that. We have, in the most "advanced" societies, a population that cannot seem to replace itself in spite of there being no resource limits. There are many manifestations, or mechanisms, of this failure.

Otto said...

Cookie is correct we humans have an array of fluid behaviors. But in that array their can be destructive behavior that can result in chaos. What to do?? Some tackle that bad behavior and come under assault by those who say we humans have an array of behavior how dare you reject bad behavior and they were joined by the chorus elitist . But somewhere in the soul there arose this feeling " enough with this chaos" and awarded the tackler 22 million dollars.

J. Farmer said...

@Lucid-Ideas:

Don't make the mistake of confusing the activist wing of a community with the community itself. Most gay people, like most people, are not political activists.

Owen said...

"Gender fluidity" is an unfortunate phrase. Never mind the philosophical and political turmoil. Never mind, even, the metaphorical confusions to which Prof. A draws our attention.

Just: "gender" w/5 "fluidity." Ewww. Sticky stuff. That image. In the background, no matter how many public service announcements you want to run.

gilbar said...

as a population there are serious (and I mean very serious) self-esteem and confidence psychological issues
Even more with people that think that they have to cut their dicks off?

It's ALMOST like these people have mental illnesses; but That Can't be it, can it?
I mean, sexuality is a Choice; right? Or; it's innate from birth? I can never remember which

Fen said...

Drowning it in inclusiveness to broaden its clout

Airbrushing history. I remember that point in time - bisexuality was included to give the theme of LGBT more clout, ie. "look at all the different ways people can express themselves sexually". If anything, the gays folded bisexuality into their movement to give *themselves* more clout, to normalize all their own sexual preference.

And I'm not at all surprised to find gays bigoted towards bisexuality. It's why I have stopped supporting homosexual rights. I'll start respecting gay rights again when they demonstrate they can respect the rights of heterosexuals ("bake me a cake or I'll ruin your life!").

J. Farmer said...

@buwaya:

Exactly that. We have, in the most "advanced" societies, a population that cannot seem to replace itself in spite of there being no resource limits. There are many manifestations, or mechanisms, of this failure.

Then is it your contention that the human population must continue to grow until it reaches a resource limit that culls it away (ie large numbers of people starve to death)? How many children do you have?

Shouting Thomas said...

Perverts have become the most fucking annoying, pedantic ranters, haven't they?

I ran into a lot of shitheads like this in New York City and San Francisco, incessantly bleating about their incredibly glamorous, ideologically driven sex lives.

What assholes!

The ones I knew personally were incredibly fucked up as the result of their own determined efforts. Obnoxious, abusive pieces of shit blaming their rotten lives on everybody around them.

For Christ's fucking sake, if you're a pervert, try to have a good time, be a decent human, don't expect the rest of us to kiss your ass over your glorious perversion and shut up about it.

Fen said...

That's one of the biggest problems with the victim heirarchy implied in identity politics. If everyone desires to be a victim, the more "legitimate" victims can feel jaded. There's a fear of a loss of specialness. Some people like the idea of being unique, to have a story, a struggle that they had overcome, something that they feel they've earned.

As Syndrome said "And when everyone's super, no-one will be."


Yup, that's the entire purpose of "intersectionality", to keep all the divided tribes from warring with each other instead of the Evil White Hetero Male.

It's not going to work. And I have a huge stake in popcorn futures as a result. We are already seeing shots fired between lesbians and trannys.

J. Farmer said...

@Fen:

It's why I have stopped supporting homosexual rights. I'll start respecting gay rights again when they demonstrate they can respect the rights of heterosexuals ("bake me a cake or I'll ruin your life!").

How can gays, as a group, demonstrate anything? "Gays" are not responsible for what "some gays" do.

buwaya said...

"Well...we all are."

Some more than others.
To be expected in any survival bottleneck.
In this case a bottleneck that we created.
The problem in this case is that there is no reason to think that there is a way out of this particular bottleneck, as it is self created by our advanced culture, but we don't understand what we did.

rhhardin said...

Pandora's box is not good in sexual discussions.

n.n said...

Political congruence ("=") is separate and exclusive. Homosexual orientation is one class in the transgender spectrum, and one, perhaps two, male and female, colors in the "rainbow."

nob490 said...

Fernandistein -- I see what you did there. Very clever.

J. Farmer said...

@n.n.:

Homosexual orientation is one class in the transgender spectrum, and one, perhaps two, male and female, colors in the "rainbow."

You state some iteration of this point in every post that has to do with homosexuality. And I still don't know what it's supposed to mean or what conclusions we are supposed to draw from it.

Shouting Thomas said...

Althouse's interest in this dreary crap has always puzzled me.

She reads too much literature.

And thinks the physical world should in some way be struggling to conform to the world of literature.

Crap like "The Handmaid's Tales" is Althouse's porn.

Lucid-Ideas said...

@J. Farmer

I have to disagree. I view this very much in the same vein as I view jihadi and Wahhabist extremism. In other words, the no enemies in my own ranks mindset.

Gays do themselves no favors when there's not a word of protest from within that community for clear antagonism from that community for 'normal' people. From cake shops to wedding photographers to 'straight pride', the silence is deafening. For once I'd like to see prominent gay organizations attack gays, lesbians or whatever-the-hell-they-feel-like-that-days who antagonize people who won't toe-the-line of their interpretation of 'acceptance'.

I've said it a million times if I've said it once, gays globally represent potentially less than 2% of the population and suck 95% of the oxygen out of the room these days. It's time to put the kinksters back in their respective and representative space so to speak.

People are getting really pissed at the excess noise and static and for good reason.

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

there is no reason to think that there is a way out of this particular bottleneck

It does appear to be a progressive process.

buwaya said...

"How many children do you have?"

Three. I wish we had had time to make more. Anyone in our position with a large number of children, well, they will inherit the future. Whatever that may be.

"Then is it your contention that the human population must continue to grow until it reaches a resource limit that culls it away (ie large numbers of people starve to death)?"

That is not the problem facing humanity at the moment, or not those parts that are at the cultural pinnacle.

John henry said...

If sexuality is fluid, if gayz can be straight and vice-versa, it seems to me that "pray the gay away" is a reasonable approach for those who don't want to be gay.

Using "pray" in a very broad sense to include non religious counseling and the like.

John Henry

Fen said...

It was because so many people that I, for one, knew actually identified as gay had been exploiting the 'bi' term as a sexual caveat to avoid the risks of coming out completely. Or, at the very least, they were taking the term on loan as a baby step in that direction

Perfect example of what I meant upthread: The author who demanded sexual liberty resents others who wanted their own version of sexual liberty.

We keep seeing this and it still amazes me - people who are subject to bigotry and should know better are often the worst bigots (blacks are the most racist group). Maybe it's like child abuse, the victim grows up to become the perpetrator, because that's what was role-modeled for them?

n.n said...

resents others who wanted their own version of sexual liberty

Other classes in the transgender spectrum are adulterated and weird.

Shouting Thomas said...

Pervs with long intellectual arguments in favor of their perversion, like this J. Farmer guy, are really a ludicrous pain in the ass.

Jesus, I'm a perv. Won't tell you what kind.

I don't have an argument for it.

buwaya said...

"She reads too much literature."

AFAIK, no she doesn't.

John henry said...

Gays not gayz

John Henry

n.n said...

Great. Whatever turns you on.

It's not some accomplishment.

It's just something you choose to do.


When nothing less than normalization (i.e. promotion) is tolerable.

Shouting Thomas said...

I'm nostalgic for the days when pervs tried to be entertaining and exciting.

Now, all the dumb fucking pervs want to be leaders of the next great perv civil rights crusade.

This is not an improvement.

Fen said...

How can gays, as a group, demonstrate anything?

Are you trying to argue that gays don't demonstrate? Seriously?

Would you like two tickets to Hamilton where gays will hijack a play, not to call out their brothers and sisters and ask for moderation, but instead lecture you on your subconscious desire to ship them off to the gulag?

Two different movies, again.

How many days out of the week are conservatives chastised for not denying Richard Spencer or whatever jackass is speaking in our name?

J. Farmer said...

@Lucid-Ideas:

Gays do themselves no favors when there's not a word of protest from within that community for clear antagonism from that community for 'normal' people.

And what exactly is your mechanism for knowing what protests are made "from within that community." The fact that you are ignorant of such protests does not mean that there is "not a word of protest."

For example, this quote The Guardian article The ‘gay cake’ fight: why the bakers had a right to refuse this order:

“Although I strongly disagree with Ashers’ opposition to marriage equality,” the veteran LGBT and human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has observed, “in a free society neither they nor anyone else should be compelled to facilitate a political idea that they oppose.”

I can provide you many more examples if you wish.

PM said...

Would be cool if Vegas had odds on when gender designations with reach 100 on Facebook

Yancey Ward said...

"Most gay people, like most people, are not political activists."

Isn't this really the core of Farber's complaint?

Fen said...

Other classes in the transgender spectrum are adulterated and weird.

It's typical of the fetish community - everything thinks *their* particular kink is hot and everyone else's is sick. They are more puritan than they know. And judgey too. LOL, so ironic.

J. Farmer said...

@Fen:

Are you trying to argue that gays don't demonstrate? Seriously?

When a radical feminist gets up and spouts some nonsense, I do not believe they are speaking for "women." I think the same thing about gay activists. Seriously.

How many days out of the week are conservatives chastised for not denying Richard Spencer or whatever jackass is speaking in our name?

So two wrongs make a right?

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...

Other classes in the transgender spectrum are adulterated and weird.

It's typical of the fetish community - everyone thinks *their* particular kink is hot and everyone else's is sick.

They are more puritan than they know.

And judgey too. LOL, so ironic.

n.n said...

What does it mean to succeed as a natural creature other than passing ones genes on?

The left of normal position is that "our Posterity" is a "burden" with negotiable human and civil rights. That men are splooge stooges and women are egg basket cases. Some straddle the twilight fringe more than others.

Owen said...

John Henry @ 11:47: "...pray the gay away..."

Yes! It can be done. Gradually. One degree at a time. There's a book about that, right? "Fifty Shades of Gay"?

Oh. Wait.

J. Farmer said...

@Yancey Ward:

Isn't this really the core of Farber's complaint?

Beats me. I didn't read it.

Shouting Thomas said...

OK, I give J. Farmer 95 points and a gold star.

Yessir, this guy is the most reasonable, fucking perv in the U.S.

Boring as hell, too.

This is one hell of an innovative, daring conversation we're having. Just like the several billion identical rants I've been showered with now for 50 years.

Althouse never tires of this shit.

n.n said...

And judgey too. LOL, so ironic.

Ironically, #TooManyLabels and #Judgment are features of social progress.

Lucid-Ideas said...

Gay conversion therapy is the ultimate representation of this double-standard, but not because of why you think.

The real reason 'gay conversion' is so heretical to homosexuals isn't because of resentment over sexual freedom or choice, but because of the idea of 'choice' to begin with destroys the born that way argument putting homosexuals supposedly above reproach (i.e. placing the blame on nature and god, and deflecting away from personal responsibility).

I have always been of the educated opinion that humans are formed far more by 'nurture' than by 'nature', and that sexuality is a psychological condition that is very much formed, not made.

If sexuality is indeed a choice than high-rates of suicide are a choice...
Higher drug use as a population is a choice...
Higher rates of STDs are a choice...
AIDS IS A CHOICE....

See where I'm going with this? Those things mustn't be made into choices because then people have to become responsible for their kinks, and responsibility is the biggest boner-killer of all. At least for the children-posing-as-adults that we have in the homo-community.

gspencer said...

When oh when are they gonna invent Gaydar? We need it now more than ever.

Fen said...

So two wrongs make a right?

No, I simply no longer play that game, the one where you refuse to abide by the same rules you inflict on me.

Fool me once...

When you demonstrate that you will live up to those rules, I will start doing the same. I made hundreds of good faith efforts over many decades, only to watch as you and yours refused to do the same. No more. That faith is gone. You're going to have to go first this time. Then we'll see.

n.n said...

I still don't know what it's supposed to mean or what conclusions we are supposed to draw from it.

Gender (i.e. masculine, feminine) refers to physical and mental (e.g. sexual orientation) sex-correlated attributes.

J. Farmer said...

@Shouting Thomas:

OK, I give J. Farmer 95 points and a gold star.

Care to point out something I've said you wish to take exception to?

Yessir, this guy is the most reasonable, fucking perv in the U.S.

Not sure who "this guy," but if you're referring to the guy Althouse quoted, I haven't said anything about him or his point-of-view.

p.s. I look forward to straight men foregoing blowjobs in the name of anti perversion. Perhaps you can lead the rallying call.

Lewis Wetzel said...

7/19, 11:52 AM
Blogger J. Farmer said...
. . .
For example, this quote The Guardian article The ‘gay cake’ fight: why the bakers had a right to refuse this order:

Two problems, J. Farmer: This article is about Ireland, not the US, and the article is not protesting the antagonism towards the straight community by the gay community.

J. Farmer said...

@Fen:

When you demonstrate that you will live up to those rules, I will start doing the same.

Who is exactly is the "you" in that sentence?

bagoh20 said...

" I look forward to straight men foregoing blowjobs in the name of anti perversion. Perhaps you can lead the rallying call."

I, for one, refuse to blow anybody. It's a matter of principle. I do not however tell other how to live their lives. If they want to do it, that's cool, assuming I'm in the mood, in private, and not busy working in my garage.

Lewis Wetzel said...


Blogger John henry said...

If sexuality is fluid, if gayz can be straight and vice-versa, it seems to me that "pray the gay away" is a reasonable approach for those who don't want to be gay.

So much of the "Progressive" agenda requires taking away liberty.
Suppose you are forty something, and one day find yourself sexually attracted to men. You don't like this, it it weird and threatens your marriage.
If you are in California, you cannot seek psychological help for this problem. The political state's interests are that you be denied the care that you want.

n.n said...

If sexuality is indeed a choice than high-rates of suicide are a choice...

Sexual orientation is sex-correlated. Transgender classes arise from divergent genetics, phenotype, or, perhaps, nurture. The elite status of the homosexual orientation follows because it is generally "stable" and limited to one particular, notably mental, gender attribute, which is less different or weird (e.g. neo-sexual), and disruptive (e.g. bisexual), than other classes in the transgender spectrum.

Lucid-Ideas said...

@J. Farmer

So loud, I heard it sung from CNN. Moaned from MSNBC. Wailed by Elizabeth Warren. But gawped from the Guardian? Who'da thunk!

Raindrop in the ocean. These people have three rules:

- Never make other gay people have a 'sadz'
- Normal and hetero people are the enemy
- Have pride in everything you do that's NOT being a good citizen regardless whether how you get there is by commission or omission

I have no respect for any person or group of people where evidence abounds they'll defend other people and cultures that would quite literally throw them from rooftops.

The gay community have turned themselves into a destructive force in the USA, not constructive.

Fen said...

Who is exactly is the "you" in that sentence?

Look what one guy started, instead of sitting around lazily proclaiming "not all Muslims"

n.n said...

I, for one, refuse to blow anybody. It's a matter of principle. I do not however tell other how to live their lives. If they want to do it

Reasonable, and practical. Many, perhaps most, sexual proclivities and experimentation are often tolerable, do not demand rejection (e.g. pedophilia, rape), and, with one notable exception, do not merit normalization.

BarrySanders20 said...

"I’m sad to report that three or four decades ago, many gay-assertive people (myself included) looked at some of those who identified as bisexual with suspicion..."

And now they do again. That is so gay.

Althouse sums it up in three words: Inclusiveness is diluting.

After all, you cant spell "inclusive" without LGBTQIAGNC

J. Farmer said...

@Lewis Wetzel:

Two problems, J. Farmer: This article is about Ireland, not the US, and the article is not protesting the antagonism towards the straight community by the gay community.

Her next sentence was: "From cake shops to wedding photographers to 'straight pride', the silence is deafening."

Except, there isn't silence. There are many gays who do not believe in forcing bakeries to make cakes. I quoted one such person, in a left-wing publication. Ignorance of these statements is not evidence of "silence."

Dave Rubin also springs to mind, and he has 1,000,000+ subscribers on YouTube.

traditionalguy said...

People in rebellion to normal sexual roles once were social embarrassments to their families. They were not so much rejected as they were dishonored. The day of accepting that treatment flipped in the 1990s, and it became a gay war against the Straight Privileged...such as professing Christians. Everybody had to pick a side. No more neutrality, or you were assigned the name of a religious bigot and attacked for
But since 2008 or so, the straights capitulated. And now the old strength in numbers calculation is passing away. And is being mourned.

madAsHell said...

That reads like an Obama speech sounds. Use grandiose non-sequitur metaphors, and everyone assigns a meaning through their own bias. This is laying back in tall grass, and finding unicorns in the clouds.

J. Farmer said...

@Fen:

Look what one guy started, instead of sitting around lazily proclaiming "not all Muslims"

News flash: there is quite a contingent of gay men in the alt-right. There are quite a number of gay conservatives and gay conservative organizations whose work is available for anyone to read and participate in.

n.n said...

The gay community have turned themselves into a destructive force

Some, yes. Most seem to be libertarian, or perhaps conservative, and do not conflate private and public lives.

clear antagonism from that community for 'normal' people

Like when the homosexual judge overrode democracy, then the activists came to Utah to hold a "pride parade" and punish the mostly Catholic blacks and Hispanics in California who voted against normalization.

Fen said...

Back then, they felt like a betrayal, a hedging that pushed the movement back a step, making those of us who had come out feel more isolated and vulnerable at a time when being out had far greater consequence

In other words, it wasn't a brave step to come out. He glanced to his left and right and stepped forward with the expectation that the people next to him would step forward with them. Just like that scene in Stripes, where Russel gets faked out by Bill Murray into stepping forward to take all the blame for something they both did. So brave.

Fen said...

News flash: there is quite a contingent of gay men in the alt-right. There are quite a number of gay conservatives and gay conservative organizations whose work is available for anyone to read and participate in.

News flash: you could be debating one at this very moment.

And why do you even consider this a relevant point? Are you operating under the assumption that I think gays are only on Left? Weird.

Fen said...

And you prove my point. Instead of giving me shit with your false equivalencies, you could be posting on a gay activist forum warning them about how they have radicalized people against their cause, overplaying their hand and risking the wrath of a pendulum effect... if you are so concerned.

Why not go do that?

Jeff Weimer said...

This as a classic "dog caught the car" moment.

Mr. Farber: you got what you wanted, why are you still unhappy?

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

GayPersonA: "It's not like the good old days--now, nearly any progressively minded person can find some way to identify as queer! Now, what exactly does the term even mean? They ruined it. They ruined 'queer'!"
GayPersonB: "It's heartbreaking-- we worked so hard, sacrificed so much to be accepted but now that it's gone mainstream, anyone can be queer!So sad-- my history-- my gay history——is drowning in inclusiveness!
GayPersonA: "We'll have to find another way-- I dont want to end up side-lined like Jesse Jackson and race."
GayPersonB:(singing) "Somewhere...over the rainbow..."

Sebastian said...

"Broadening is weakening. Inclusiveness is diluting."

If you assume the gay rights movement was about gays.

If you view the movement as a prog attack on the wider culture, you'd see that broadening is just opening another front in the culture war. Gayness has served its purpose. Now fluidity is the new weapon. Inclusiveness serves the better to exclude the cisheteronormative white men.

J. Farmer said...

@Fen:

Why not go do that?

How exactly do you know what I do and what I don’t do? FYI, I’ve argued for paleoconservatism as an out gay man my entire adult life and have been involved in a number of gay organizations from a conservative perspective. So please don’t act like you know the first damn thing about me.

Lucid-Ideas said...

“A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, ‘You are mad; you are not like us.'”

- St. Anthony

I love that quote. I like to paraphrase it as, “A time is coming when men will become gay, and when they see someone who is not gay, they will attack him, saying, ‘You are mad; you are not gay like us.'”

BlackjohnX said...

Aside from a boring discussion about grammar, who, frankly, gives a shit. Just another would be victim whining about the world not being organized the way he/she/it/??? would have it.

stevew said...

I'm so open and accepting of diversity that I don't want to know, in fact I just don't care. Do you?

bagoh20 said...

Crabs in a bucket.

Craig Howard said...

there is no LBGTQ coalition

That bears repeating.

It's as made up as the lumping of all Spanish-speakers into one political group.

Static Ping said...

As they say, men (and women) are most conservative in what they know best.

Lewis Wetzel said...

JFarmer-
Thanks for the response.
But the sentence "From cake shops to wedding photographers to 'straight pride', the silence is deafening" clearly refers back to ". . . not a word of protest from within that community for clear antagonism from that community for 'normal' people."
And the Guardian article you link to does not protest the antagonism many in the gay activist community feel for non-straight people who do not accept the normalizing of gays.
Dave Rubin speaks more to the straight community than the gay community. The NY Times recently smeared Rubin as alt-right.
But perhaps the problem is not generic "gay activists." Perhaps it is the radical "mainstream" media. When they decide to report on the gay community, I assume they hit the rolodex, and they only accept radical gays as legitimate spokespeople for the gay community.

Bob said...

...Broadening is weakening. Inclusiveness is diluting.

Isn't that what the House did in condemning "hate and intolerance" rather than the specific anti-semitic comments by Ilhan Omar?

Shouting Thomas said...

Althouse has unearthed the latest set of niggers, just like blacks under Jim Crow!

She’s been obsessed with this daffy bullshit for 60 years, ever since she declared herself, a rich suburban white girl, a nigger just like blacks under Jim Crow.

The funny thing is she keeps enlisting idiots to talk seriously about this crap. Laughter and ridicule are the only sane responses.

Clearly, what is needed is study and college departments dedicated to the latest subset of niggers.

Probably government subsidies and reparations are in order.

I hope you don’t run out of niggers before you die, Althouse. What would you do?

wholelottasplainin' said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
wholelottasplainin' said...

Robert Cook said...
"Name one animal other than Man who thinks it can, or in fact can, change their sex at will."

Natural creatures.

This is just one of several links I found in an instant.
****************

Tell us which of those creatures have a "will".

Then tell us which demands special treatment for its sex change.

Henry said...

JFarmer, you can't win. The people you are arguing with here are more invested in identity politics than you are.

They hate a kind of politics which allows them to hate a class of people by ascribing to those people the politics they hate.

dbp said...

"From "Categorically Gay/For queer people who grew up in an era when rigid identities were essential, today’s fluidity can feel like their history is washing out with the tide" by Jim Farber (in Slate)."

I don't know if themes normally carry-over to other days, but this seems like the nut of the issue around Oberlin. I we care about racism, I think we do and should, then we should want the term "racist" to contain a lot of power. If it can mean trying to protect your business from being robbed or MAGA for that matter, then the term is reduced to frivolity. The word is a tool, if we blunt it from overuse or over-generalization, it will lose the ability to do anything useful.

Shouting Thomas said...

It’s 1968 all over again!

Yay!

bagoh20 said...

"... today’s fluidity can feel like their history is washing out with the tide"

Welcome to the melting pot. Soon you might just end up being nothing but an American. Oh, the horror!

traditionalguy said...

Gays have the right to be proud of themselves the same as straights do. It has nothing to do with sex methods or victimization acts. It has the basis in courage to serve other people in need. Sex schemex. Who do you give your life away for. Raising Children is the traditional way. But many gay people of courage do it in other ways. The Documentary “5b” is worth consideration.

J. Farmer said...

@Lewis Wetzel:

Perhaps it is the radical "mainstream" media. When they decide to report on the gay community, I assume they hit the rolodex, and they only accept radical gays as legitimate spokespeople for the gay community.

An important, and I think correct, point. The so called "gay activists" that are filtered through the media are not representative of the "gay community," and the two should not be conflated. Holding that "gays" are responsible for the work of some gay activists is like holding that "women" are responsible for everything that NOW or NARAL does.

J. Farmer said...

And the Guardian article you link to does not protest the antagonism many in the gay activist community feel for non-straight people who do not accept the normalizing of gays.

I should say, quickly, that I don't think there is much use in protesting what an amorphous "many in the gay activist community feel." I don't really care what people feel. It is not relevant to me.

narciso said...

it's all about the activist core, the rank and file can go hang

http://www.journal14.com/2019/06/15/more-reparations-nonsense/#comments

Lucid-Ideas said...

Are you ready for a real mind-blower? So according to several interpretations of the hadith, islam permits transsexuality so long has it honors 'heternormativity' (tag). It is well documented that in Iran of all places, sexual-reassignment surgery is subsidized by the state. But there are only two sexes, and behavior and 'normativity' must be obeyed, including abaya.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_rights_in_Iran

Think about the cognitive-dissonance of that for a brief second. Hang the gay, but 'neuter' or 'spay' is A-OK. Not surprising though for a nation of boy-fuckers.

The 'tag' heteronormativity is both correct but also an attempt at changing language. Heterosexuality IS normal. THE normal. Even among the sexually marginalized, who work ever so hard all the time to emulate it. Binary is normal NOT 'normative'. Active or passive. Male or female. Up or down. Left/right. Even in circles. Everyone fundamentally wants to be 'straight', it's just gays fake it badly.

As a society we're not having the conversations that need having, most especially with the young who are being bombarded 24/7 with sexual propaganda designed to affect their voting both financial and political.

n.n said...

Heteronormal, as in sex-correlated gender, and a gender-centered normal distribution. Nature's Choice.

n.n said...

identity politics

We're trying to avoid diversity or color judgments. In this case, the goal is also to avoid conflation out of context, and #TooManyLabels, advocated by a consensus, which distort the field.

J. Farmer said...

@Lucid-Ideas:

Heterosexuality IS normal. THE normal.

Undoubtedly. The trouble is conflating "normal" with good and "abnormal" with bad. They certainly can be, but they don't go hand-in-hand. As far as nature is concerned, its' perfectly normal for two 13-year-olds to conceive. But I don't know anyone who thinks that is a good idea.

Everyone fundamentally wants to be 'straight', it's just gays fake it badly.

I disagree. Homosexuality isn't just a kind of; it's a kind of love. To quote Christopher Hitchens.

As a society we're not having the conversations that need having, most especially with the young who are being bombarded 24/7 with sexual propaganda designed to affect their voting both financial and political.

They certainly are, but of course the overwhelming majority of that sexual propaganda is of the "heteronormative" variety.

bagoh20 said...

"Gays have the right to be proud of themselves the same as straights do."

I have never felt pride about my sexual preference. Even now when the culture considers being heterosexual cisgender an unfortunate sign of Neandertal heritage, and our professional and legal systems seem to favor others above my natural preference, I still do not consider clinging to that preference to be some badge of honor or civil right. I do know that getting sex would be easier with most any other choice but mine.

Fen said...

Farmer: So please don’t act like you know the first damn thing about me.

Again, you first.

J. Farmer said...

@Fen:

Again, you first.

I haven't said one thing about you personally. I don't know anything about you, and even if I did, it would have nothing to do with the argument I was making.

R.J. Chatt said...

My take away: The political goal of broadening LGBTQIA clout (where lots of people are questioning their identities and everyone is potentially bisexual) is the aspiration to eliminate the hierachry of heterosexuality normality, to create a society of equality where there is no better or socially advantageous sexual or gender identity. This contradicts the reality where the vast majority of people are heterosexual and whose genders align with their sexual identity. The goal of chaos also contradicts the primary goal of society which is to create stability and a positive environment where life can be maintained, continued, and hopefully advanced.

Apparently there are gay people who do not want to be homogenized within a blur of "queerness" and prefer to maintain their uniqueness and marginalization. I support that but uniqueness does not have to result in marginalization. We live in a country where minorities are protected, where being a member of a minority does not have to mean victimhood. My own frustration with the activism of the LGBTQIA... is the intensely aggressive sense of victimhood to justify their zealousness to redefine terms like sex, etc. and to impose an ideology on others.

BTW, Brandon Straka, gay Trump supporter and the #WalkAway (from liberalism) founder, is suing the NY LGBT Center for cancelling a panel on which he was to speak about how the Democrat party uses lies, fear mongering, fake news, hate and division to keep LGBTQ on the D ticket. Liberal gay activists had launched a campaign to cancel the event claiming he was promoting right wing white supremacism and the Center folded. Stay posted.

J. Farmer said...

(That's an observation. Not an invitation to further dialogue.)

Hallelujah. For what it's worth, I did not consider what we were doing a "dialogue" in the first place.

Rabel said...

A "clout" is something done with a fist or a hard object. "Fluidity" doesn't deliver "clout."

I think that's called pegging. As opposed to the fluidity of water sports. I'm not really clear.

But seriously, your narrowed definition of "clout" is mystifying. You've used it yourself many times just as Farber did to mean "influence."

And with that meaning Farber's "interesting phrase" makes perfect sense.

J. Farmer said...

@RJ Chatt:

My own frustration with the activism of the LGBTQIA... is the intensely aggressive sense of victimhood to justify their zealousness to redefine terms like sex, etc. and to impose an ideology on others.

Agreed. But it is part and parcel of identity politics. Being a member of an aggrieved victim class is how one gets status in neo-America. The civil rights movement was justified on the historical uniqueness of the American black experience. If I was a black American descended from slaves, I would find gays, Hispanics, and recent immigrants piggy backing off the civil rights movement to be rather offensive. But as Steve Sailer correctly points out, hating whitey is the KKKrazy Klue that keeps the Democrats' coalition of the fringes together.

Sigivald said...

As someone who's been basically on-board with "Queers are fine" for decades, I find it nonetheless hilarious to watch the Woke Revolution eat itself, as a result of the constant pressure to redefine and rework everything to suit the moment's utility, not an overarching plan ... or even just good old fashioned "the truth about stuff".

John henry said...

1 Saudi Arabia executes gays by chopping their heads off. The crime is not necessarily having gay sex. Just being a celibate gay is enough.

2 Apple has a number of stores In SA

3 many people who are in favor of gay rights, including our hostess use Apple phones And other products.

4 why?

I support gay rights but don't use Apple products for several reasons.

I avoid Google when I can. I use Android UT do not feel comfortable about it.

John Henry

lots of supporters of gay rights use Apple products

Lucid-Ideas said...

@J. Farmer

I don't play the cultural relativism game. There are - contrary to modern aesthetics - rules that have and still do stand the test of time. There is 'bad' culture and 'good' culture and behavior. Gays - were they to vanish tomorrow - would leave virtually nothing to their posterity that wasn't manufactured and artificial. Regardless of 13 year olds, they can actually conceive, as nature intended. Gays can not. Homosexuality is a choice AND an aberration. Regarding behavioral relativism, I would also mention that every classifiable group of people on the planet have viewed homosexuality - though not necessarily as a sin - as 'sub-optimal'. From ancient Mayan to the Chinese 'order of the cut sleeve', it is a choice that is engaged in after the man in question has fulfilled his duties to his society and his family and for his personal pleasure. Only in the West and only recently has homosexuality been 'sanctified' politically as a pillar of acceptance.

This is wrong and 'bad'.

"I disagree. Homosexuality isn't just a kind of; it's a kind of love. To quote Christopher Hitchens."

False equivalency. Celebrating the summit without considering how you got there. Like climbing Everest by landing on the summit with a helicopter. Fundamentally, at the end of the day an exercise in self-gratification.

"They certainly are, but of course the overwhelming majority of that sexual propaganda is of the "heteronormative" variety."

If the 'fairness-in-minority-representation-movement' is to be believed, then that sounds perfectly acceptable...from a proportionate representation stand-point. But, I don't believe that is the case. There is well-documented pressure - huge pressure - to normalize this behavior.

There can be no doubt and no dispute that homosexuality was, is, and will be an aberration of human behavior. It may have always existed, but it is not normal (not even within the animal kingdom) and should not be normalized.


narayanan said...

Hydraulic shock (colloquial: water hammer; fluid hammer) is a pressure surge or wave caused when a fluid, usually a liquid but sometimes also a gas, in motion is forced to stop or change direction suddenly; a momentum change.

narayanan said...

People - catch up on Physics

narayanan said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27BP4CL66Tk

mother of all hammers

J. Farmer said...

@Lucid-Ideas:

There can be no doubt and no dispute that homosexuality was, is, and will be an aberration of human behavior. It may have always existed, but it is not normal (not even within the animal kingdom) and should not be normalized.

If you care to reread my last response to you, you will see that I conceded that point in my very first sentence. My argument is that to say that something is abnormal is mostly a statistical point. It doesn't tell you much beyond that. What are we supposed to draw from that conclusion?

J. Farmer said...

Homosexuality is a choice

Engaging in homosexual behavior may be choice, but to say that homosexuality is a choice seems like quite a reach. How do you know that? What would be the mechanism for choosing ones sexual orientation? When did you make the choice to be attracted to the opposite sex? How did you learn it? If I look at an attractive man and get physically aroused, what choice am I making in that situation?

Rusty said...

Why is it important to you that I know your gay?

n.n said...

Homosexuality is a choice

Mental attributes of gender may well be a choice, as defined by the consensus that assumes/asserts consciousness originates in the brain as an electrochemical process.

n.n said...

hilarious to watch the Woke Revolution eat itself

The Pro-Choice quasi-religion is unsustainable. Eventually, they will need to reconcile their disparate, incompatible principles of relativism, dump their urban dictionary, their diverse euphemisms, #TooManyLabels when it matters, etc.

R.J. Chatt said...

Lucid-Ideas writes, "There can be no doubt and no dispute that homosexuality was, is, and will be an aberration of human behavior. It may have always existed, but it is not normal (not even within the animal kingdom) and should not be normalized." This attitude of judgement, rejection and marginalization is what feeds the activism of liberal LGBTQ's.

"Gays - were they to vanish tomorrow - would leave virtually nothing to their posterity that wasn't manufactured and artificial." I am not sure what that statement means. Does this include the work and contributions of gay writers, artists, musicians, etc.? Just reject all of that? Exceptionally creative people (that includes both gay and straight) are definitely not "normal" people. Are people who are normal superior for being normal? Average is average, not better. Maybe we don't agree on the definition of normal?

narciso said...

a jump the shark moment:



https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2019/06/17/because-of-course-she-is-rachel-dolezal-wants-everyone-to-know-shes-totally-bisexual-now-but-aint-nobody-buyin-it/

n.n said...

"There can be no doubt and no dispute that homosexuality was, is, and will be an aberration of human behavior. It may have always existed, but it is not normal (not even within the animal kingdom) and should not be normalized.

It is. However, the problem is a popular conflation of domains. When is sex relevant? When is gender relevant? Are there anthropogenic forcings of catastrophic climate changes? What are the relative fitness functions? What is the universal fitness function?

D 2 said...

It is an interesting premise. Should those who identify within a group which is - By nature - going to be the minority in a group of 100 people, should they be more or less concerned with "checking" their "own"?

I think Farmers point is valid. Why should he - anymore than any of the other 95-97 people in the sample - give a rats arse about the 1 in a 100 whacko whose spewing an insane point he doesn't agree with in any case?

It's not just up to him. It's up to all 100 to debate (as individuals) and set down the lines of what is civilized society. I think that is the line he is drawing in the sand. He is clear he doesn't support whacko collectivists. That is all there is to it.

This new drama is that for the non-Farmers of the world who are in the 2-5% minority, who don't want to acknowledge the fact that if you believe in individual rights, you can't give a flying burrito if some of the 2-3% "fluid" folk decide to go heterosexual in the end. You just can't have it both ways. (Or should I say cake and eat it too)

So we are at a cross roads: do you want to be accepted as individuals or not? If some of those in the small subset which you are also in, decide to remove themselves from that subset next year, well, that's their choice. Let them go, or be (rightly) considered a bigot.

To the majority (heterosexuals) ... some are suspicious that this fluidity stuff is a tactic to increase the small subset.

I think you'd need to wake up pretty early in the morning to convince me that I didn't want a go at Blondie*** back in the day. I would think 95% of the pop know who they are, including a 2% homosexual subset. Maybe who knows another 2-5% might not, but that is a small subset.

(***Or Stevie Nicks. Or Christie Hynde. Or Whitney Houston. Or Patsy Kensit. Or etc)

narciso said...

probably, chrissie hynde?



https://www.amgreatness.com/2019/06/15/hugh-culverhouse-planned-parenthood-and-eugenics/

D 2 said...

Actually I still want a go at Patsy Kensit.

Nobody said...

They sure called them liars so were they lying then or are they lying now.

Scott M said...

"Fluidity" doesn't deliver "clout."

Fluidity under enough pressure can damned sure deliver clout. What do you suppose the pounds-per-square inch was against Sweet Cakes By Melissa in Colorado?

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

Why should he - anymore than any of the other 95-97 people in the sample - give a rats arse about the 1 in a 100 whacko whose spewing an insane point he doesn't agree with in any case?

there will always be 'whacko's'. In any group.
BUT--
-are they the one's "driving the bus"?
-are they in significant numbers?
-who are they driving their bus into?(literally/metaphorically)
-when they spout-off in the name of their group, or when they cause harm, do the 'non-
whacko's' of the group sincerely repudiate the act?
-are these 'non-whacko's' visible, vocal and exemplary?
-do they endeavor to foster a culture of 'non-whackiness' among their ranks?
-do they demonstrably marginalize/minimize whackos/whackiness

AlbertAnonymous said...

Oh for the love of God....

It’s always about your feelings and how other people trample them:

“Back then, they felt like a betrayal, a hedging that pushed the movement back a step, making those of us who had come out feel more isolated and vulnerable at a time when being out had far greater consequence....”

So we have to tip toe around you and your feelings and have to let you decide when and how (if ever) to come out. And however you do it, it’s simultaneously (1) “the right way for you” and we need to celebrate you (yeah you) and (2) the most horribly traumatizing event of all time and we need to commiserate with you (oh poor you). GMAFB !

And then there’s this:

“If nearly any progressively minded person can find some way to identify as queer, what, exactly, does the term even mean?”

OMG poor you again. Those that came out differently than you, or don’t meet your “gayness” standard haven’t qualified for your gayness/trauma/victimhood olympiad.

Jeff said...

Then is it your contention that the human population must continue to grow until it reaches a resource limit that culls it away (ie large numbers of people starve to death)?

The most important resource is the accumulated applied intelligence of people, called technology. People figured out fire and cooking, invented the wheel and the internal combustion engine, and people figured out how to grow far more food on less land. This resource increases as population increases, and the really great thing about it is that replicating the resource is nearly costless, that is, once something's been invented, it doesn't cost much to spread that knowledge. So over time, the accumulated inventions of a larger population increases wealth and living standards.

Malthus was dreadfully wrong. So are most of the environmentalists. Go read Julian Simon.

Unknown said...

I am a fairly libertarian person. If someone wants to sleep with his own gender, I find it distasteful, but hey, to each his own.

The simple medical reality, though, is that within 12 years of the Stonewall "liberation" of the gay lifestyle that we were all just force-fed as a celebration, its population was riddled with disease. Not just the quickly festering AIDS virus, but all manner of repugnant STDs, plus bacterial and amoebic infections.

Randy Shilts, a gifted gay writer who himself later died of AIDS, catalogued this emergent health crisis objectively in his incredible "And the Band Played On".

This is a fundamentally unhealthy way of life, and I believe it creates generally unserious people. Being gay is in no way intrinsically noble.




Francisco D said...

I find this discussion annoying.

Some people seem to be confounding sexual choice/genetic disposition with politics.

There is no value to engaging in that argument.

Grow up.

LordSomber said...

First World Problems.

J. Farmer said...

@Unknown:

The simple medical reality, though, is that within 12 years of the Stonewall "liberation" of the gay lifestyle that we were all just force-fed as a celebration, its population was riddled with disease. Not just the quickly festering AIDS virus, but all manner of repugnant STDs, plus bacterial and amoebic infections.

One does not have much to do with the other. The effect of the post-Stonewall era was not to make more men become gay or engage in receptive sodomy. Those same men existed before Stonewall and they existed after. Gay bath houses in major cities were a pre-Stonewall reality. In other words, gay men would still be having gay sex with or without Stonewall.

Plus, as far as behaviorally-driven medical problems and their costs on society, we have many options to choose from. Drinking. Smoking. Eating too much sugar. People are imperfect creatures who often engage in a lot of self-destructive behavior while trying to navigate the very complicated world of a life we know is heading for oblivion.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

"And what exactly is your mechanism for knowing what protests are made "from within that community." The fact that you are ignorant of such protests does not mean that there is "not a word of protest.""

I don't doubt that you're to the right of Genghis Khan, Farmer, but it's disingenuous in the extreme to pretend that a few unheard dissenters counterbalance the toxic narrative. For "activists" to so successfully push that narrative requires a shitload of complicity, silent or otherwise. "Good Germans" are admirable, fleets of B-17s rather more effective.

J. Farmer said...

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent:

it's disingenuous in the extreme to pretend that a few unheard dissenters counterbalance the toxic narrative.

That wasn't the claim.

For "activists" to so successfully push that narrative requires a shitload of complicity, silent or otherwise.

If the activists were solely drawn from the gay community, perhaps. But a lot of gay activism is done by so called "allies" (ie straights). And the number of progressive heterosexuals in America outnumbers the entirety of the gay community.

Josephbleau said...

They say the neon lights are bright on Broadway, but looking at them just gives me the blues...

FIDO said...

The trannies and the bisexual undercut the rock solid defense that gay people tried very hard to establish: it was not a choice; it was the way they were born!

And I can buy that, with some nuance.

But if Gender Neutral Pat can be a boy or a girl depending on the phase of the moon, if Both Way Bob can feel like some sausage one day, and some oysters the next...than that makes their situation 'fluid'...and we can, as a society, try some hydraulic engineering...


So this idiot needs to come down on trannies and bisexual people. He was correct the first time. But it isn't 'fashionable' for him to take that stance and as a gay MALE, he will have a huge target on his back if he tries to buck the narrative.

So this abject piece of surrendering...I actually pity him. He is probably moderately smart, but his allies are going in directions which are antithetical to his interests. So he is stuck with sticking to allies which are staining his niche group...or being alone.

And we know that gay males don't handle loneliness well...


More cracks in the interest groups among the Dems as they continue to go to that far Left Horizon. And they continue to accelerate.

Nobody said...

It’s like we don’t talk about global warming anymore, just climate change. It takes away some of the impact by acknowledging that we don’t understand very well, doesn’t it?

mtrobertslaw said...

Here's a quandary for the LGBTQ folks. Will they support the upcoming Straight People's Parade scheduled in Boston?

J. Farmer said...

Will they support the upcoming Straight People's Parade scheduled in Boston?

Withholding judgment until I see the costumes and floats.

Nobody said...

They could have an LGBTQS parade.

Fen said...

I don't doubt that you're to the right of Genghis Khan, Farmer, but it's disingenuous in the extreme to pretend that a few unheard dissenters counterbalance the toxic narrative.

And while he claims to preach moderation to those groups, I've never seen him bring it up here. That doesn't prove he's lying, but it's the odd creature who claims to have strong feelings about a topic routinely covered here at Althouse but never mentions his "counter" activism.

J. Farmer said...

@Fen:

And while he claims to preach moderation to those groups, I've never seen him bring it up here. That doesn't prove he's lying, but it's the odd creature who claims to have strong feelings about a topic routinely covered here at Althouse but never mentions his "counter" activism.

Make up your mind, Fen. Earlier you said, "you could be posting on a gay activist forum warning them about how they have radicalized people against their cause, overplaying their hand and risking the wrath of a pendulum effect... if you are so concerned."

I pointed out that I have done that my entire adult life. But now you are saying I should have done it here. And again, you are prone to making claims you can't possibly substantiate, such as that I "never mentions his 'counter' activism." That you are unaware of it is not the same thing as me never doing it. In fact, I have written many times that I disagree with a lot of gay activism. If you are so inclined, go back and read Ann's posts on the whole "gay cake" issue and see what I've said about the matter.