Annals of Intersectionality

For the progressive LGBQT+ movement, any issue on the left is now a LGBTQ+ issue. which is part of the ethos of intersectionality that only a racist, sexist, classist, transphobe would dare to object to.

Among recent examples:


For a different view of net neutrality:

,
Obviously, it’s an issue that well-meaning people can disagree about, except if you do, you’re a racist, sexist, classist, transphobe.

Another example:

As the Blade reports:

Laura Durso, vice president of LGBT research and communications for the Center for American Progress, said the package “will have massively negative implications for LGBTQ people” especially as a result of ending the individual mandate for health care.

The advantages/disadvantages of ending the individual mandate that Americans must buy expensive Obamacare policies or pay a tax penalty is also a matter that’s debatable, except when it isn’t.

And this:

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has projected the package would add $1.5 trillion to the deficit over the course of 10 years, or as much as $2.2 trillion. As a result, the national debt — which is now $20.6 trillion — would double by 2027.

There is room for argument over whether the bill will stimulate economic growth to compensate for lower rates, but progressive groups were silent on the debt issue while under the sainted Obama the national debt grew by about $9 trillion, or an increase of 86%.

The point is not to convince those on the left that net neutrality, the individual mandate or letting people save and invest more of their own money is good or bad, it’s to point out that for those in leadership positions within the LGBTQ+ activist movement, to take the wrong side of these issues is to be ant-gay and, well you know the rest of the litany.

Not a Parody

(image via Reddit)

As advertised by the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, but perhaps soon to make its way down to the states.

That’s lesbian, gay, genderqueer, bisexual, demisexual, transgender, transsexual, two-spirit, intersex, queer, questioning, asexual, allies, pansexual, polygamous.

The flyer says: “Our goal is to become more familiar with current language, sensitive to current issues, and to share best practices in supporting our LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP peers & students.”

That’s a lot to cover in one hour!

More. Andrew Sullivan blogs on LGGBDTTTIQQAAPPWHAT? and asks, “Is the gay-rights movement effectively over?” (second item):

For most of the straight people we need to engage, it feels like a near-parodic example of hair-splitting victimology and grievance-mongering. And to me, and many who once thought of ourselves as supporters of gay equality, it feels like an unpronounceable and impenetrable congeries of literally everything … and therefore nothing.

He adds:

My point is that a political movement makes sense in a liberal society because it advances certain policy proposals, and not because it spends its time constantly defining and redefining who is or who is not part of it, or sees itself as just one sliver of a broader movement dedicated to an ideology a very hefty chunk of the gay world simply doesn’t adhere to or believe in.

Too ‘Gay’?


The Facebook embed cuts off the full comment, but what the Mattachine Society of Washington, D.C., posted was:

We confirmed today the Washington film festival “Reel Affirmations” actually rejected “The Lavender Scare” for screening this fall. What film was their “Centerpiece” selection? “Apricot Groves”, an Armenian/American trans drama/romance–“Aram returns to Armenia to propose to his girlfriend….” ! After more than 50 screenings nationwide, from Tampa to Fresno, with TEN “Best of Festival” awards, and a major focus on Frank Kameny’s advocacy, “The Lavender Scare” has yet to be screened in Washington, DC.

Today’s dominant view:

Diversity and Heresy

Denise Young Smith, Apple’s first vice president of inclusion and diversity, is resigning from her position after less than a year. Smith’s announcement follows the response to comments she made during a panel discussion in October. As reported by Quartz:

When asked whether she would be focusing on any group of people, such as black women, in her efforts to create a more inclusive and diverse Apple, Young Smith says, “I focus on everyone.” She added: “Diversity is the human experience. I get a little bit frustrated when diversity or the term diversity is tagged to the people of color, or the women, or the LGBT.”

Young Smith went on to add that “there can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blonde men in a room and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation.”

For the heresy of viewing life experience as being as central to a diverse workforce as is race, sexual orientation or gender identity, Young Smith (at the very least) felt pressured to resign.

And Democrats wonder how it could be that so much of the white working class has abandoned the party of progressivism.

More.

A Sweeping Agenda

Bawer also writes:

Stryker’s Facebook posts make a few things clear: she considers pretty much everybody who falls outside her comfort zone of “creative, intellectual, political queer folks” to be a Nazi, fascist, or white supremacist whose freedom of speech should be quashed. She has only contempt for the First Amendment. And she fully accepts the use of violence by her ideological confrères. One curious aspect of her politics is her repeated assertion that when she shuts down conservatives she’s crushing anti-Semitism. Can she sincerely believe that there’s more Jew-hatred today on the right than on the left? Or is she simply one of those leftists who prefer to close their eyes to some of the opinions held by their comrades-in-arms?

In Memoriaum



Playboy has been supportive of GLAAD, at least in the organization’s early days. I suppose GLAAD’s current leadership prefers Harvey Weinstein’s money.

Another view:


And from Camille Paglia:

More. From the religious conservative Calvinist International comes a reflection on Hefner that in many ways mirrors what the feminist-left says regarding objectification of women and all that (e.g., in porn “the body of the other is just a collection of holes within which you can find different forms of stimulation and release”), but adding in a critique of homosexual relations. And the essay notes:

In porn men can escape from the limitations that actual woman place upon the satisfaction of their sexual desire and get sexual release on their own libidinous terms.

Well, yes.