Unexpected?



Courting Reaction

Andrew Sullivan writes:

Subject young white boys to critical race and gender theory, tell them that women can have penises, that genetics are irrelevant in understanding human behavior, that borders are racist, or that men are inherently toxic, and you will get a bunch of Jordan Peterson fans by their 20s. …

Many leftists somehow believe that sustained indoctrination will work in abolishing human nature, and when it doesn’t, because it can’t, they demonize those who have failed the various tests of PC purity as inherently wicked. In the end, the alienated and despised see no reason not to gravitate to ever-more extreme positions. They support people and ideas simply because they piss off their indoctrinators. And, in the end, they reelect Trump.

None of this is necessary. You can be in favor of women’s equality without buying into the toxicity of men; you can support legal immigration if the government gets serious about stopping illegal immigration; you can be inclusive of trans people without abolishing the bimodality of human sex and gender; you can support criminal-justice reform without believing — as the New York Times now apparently does — that America is an inherently racist invention, founded in 1619 and not 1775.

When Worlds Collide

Scott Adams like to say that Trump-supporters and Trump-haters are watching the same screen but seeing two different movies.

Because Our Rights Are the Only Rights that Matter?

Liberation and Exploitation

Hymowitz, a contributing editor at City Journal, also writes:

In 1977, Michel Foucault, Jean-Paul Sartre, Jacques Derrida, Simone de Beauvoir and dozens of other French intellectuals lobbied the French government to abolish age of consent laws and to decriminalise ‘consensual sex’ between adults and minors under the age of fifteen. In response to a trial of three Frenchman accused of having sex with 13 and 14 year old boys, 69 French intellectuals signed a petition arguing for their release. …
Similar questions apply to Desmond Napoles, a pre-teen “drag kid” who has performed in gay bars and has been the subject of an admiring profile on “Good Morning America” as well as a celebratory blog post by a convicted pedophile. When is a child fully capable of autonomy?

I think that consensual relations between sexually active teens and older men can sometimes be confused with, and condemned as, child sexual abuse. But I agree that when you start removing traditional barriers around sex, and gender, you should be mindful that while some constrictions were oppressive and easing them freeing, going too far in uprooting tradition in pursuit of liberation opens the door to appalling evils. It’s a lesson we learn from revolutions, sexual and otherwise, again and again.

And if a 3-year-old says he’s a bird…

Rob Smith says when a gender-nonconforming child, such as a boy who “happens to be more effeminate” and therefor identifies with girls gets told “No, no, he’s not a boy he’s a girl…there’s an element of homophobia in that.”

Leftist Lockstep

Victor Davis Hanson writes:

[Rep. Ayanna Pressley] just outlined the classic anti-Enlightenment mindset: we are all permanent captives of our superficial race, religion, and sexual orientation. We must at all times think, act, and speak in such tribal fashion—and do so monolithically and collectively, in adopting the party line as set down by such elites as those like Pressley herself.
Blacks who oppose affirmative action, or Muslims who recognize Israel, or “queers” whose sexual preferences are incidental, not essential to their personas are thus declared not authentic and thus not to be welcomed by Pressley into the new racialist Democratic Party.
In practical terms, Pressley assumes that whites, reportedly about 70 percent of the population, tune her logic out. That is, they should never take her own racist advice and vote en masse according to their superficial shared skin color. If they did, the 55 percent of actual voters who are white in her otherwise minority-majority congressional district might never have elected someone who, according to her own rationale, is not part of their own tribe.

They Who Control Speech…

Peggy Noonan writes:

Offices and schools are forced to grapple with all the new gender-neutral pronouns. … It’s wrong, when you meet a new co-worker, to ask his pronouns. (We don’t say “preferred” pronouns—that “implies someone’s gender is a preference”!) You don’t want him wondering if you think he’s transgender or nonbinary. Instead, introduce yourself in a way that summons his pronouns: “Hi, I’m Jim and my pronoun is he/him.” Use “they” a lot. It’s gender neutral. Suggested sentence: “I spoke to the marketing director and they said they’d get back to me.”
This is grammatically incorrect but so what? Correct grammar, and the intelligibility it allows, is a small price to pay for inclusion and equality.

Also:

An odd thing is they always insist they’re doing this in the name of kindness and large-spiritedness. And yet, have you ever met them? They’re not individually kind or large-spirited. They’re more like messianic schoolmasters.

<

Calling Voters ‘Bigots’ Isn’t a Winning Strategy

Kurt Schlichter captures how a lot of average Americans are feeling these days. He writes:

You’re stupid because you think there’s just two genders and that you don’t consider a “bi-curious femme-friendly questioning two-spirit” an option.

You’re a monster for wondering why boys in drag are competing (and setting “records”) in girls’ sports and for not accepting that men have periods too. …

Racist. Sexist. Ableist. Imperialist. Global Warming Denialist. Fatist.

Homophobe. Islamophobe. Transphobe. Confronting-Your-Owning-A-Dog-Privilegephobe.

Blah blah blah blah blah.

No matter what, you’re wrong.


Trans Radicalism: Sliding Off the Slippery Slope

{Moved up from prior post)
We’ve gone from using the state to force religiously conservative bakers to design cakes for same-sex weddings to this. It’s all about exerting power over others to serve your narcism.

Trans activist barbarism: