Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

  • LGBTQ Activism May Be Turning into Overreach by Supporters

    Writer Madeleine Kearns recently offers a non-exhaustive litany of the non-traditional “personages” built around an individual’s sexual or “gender” identity, to wit:

    “transgender, pansexual, bisexual, asexual, demisexual, neutrois, agender, non-binary, polysexual, polyamorous, genderqueer, and genderfluid.”

    (Don’t ask — I’ll have to try to find a very, very modern dictionary and look up some those.)

    She writes:

    Many Americans, especially young ones, find such frenzied categorization troubling, as recent figures indicate: The annual GLAAD Accelerating Acceptance report shows a noticeable drop in the number of 18- to 34-year-olds who feel comfortable interacting with LGBTQ people, from 63 percent in 2016, to 53 percent in 2017, to 45 percent in 2018. But the genius of “LGBTQ” politics — and the principal reason for its speedy success — is that its branding has shielded it from criticism, mainly by convincing critics to stay silent.

    And, indeed, “staying silent” the potential critics are doing. Well, at least too many of them.

    Not that there isn’t the occasional exception …

    The Atlantic’s James Kirchick observes,

    “starved of real enemies,” and “guided by a moral absolutism resembling the religious zeal of those they oppose, some gay activists and their progressive allies have taken a zero-sum approach to the issue of antidiscrimination.”

    Kearns commendably acknowledges what she regards as past lapses:

    Without a doubt, sexual minorities in the United States have, collectively, been ill-treated, stigmatized, discriminated against, and denied basic rights (especially during the AIDS crisis). This is shameful, but it does not justify the simplification and falsifying of historical accounts.

    (I’ll shorthand the point, borrowing succinctly from Bill O’Reilly here: “Bad behavior doesn’t justify other bad behavior!”)

    Mentioning this year is the 50th anniversary of the 1969 police raid at the Stonewall Inn in Manhattan, she brings a startling revelation:

    The revisionist accounts of this event have been telling. As Chadwick Moore at The Spectator wrote recently, “Stonewall is a legend, and the mythology keeps evolving.” He recalled that the clubs were owned by the Mafia and that employees trafficked prostitutes. “What is clear is that Stonewall was not targeted simply because gays hung out there.”

    Trans activists have been promoting their own revisionist history of the Stonewall riots. A monument honoring Marsah P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera, two transgender activists, is to be built in New York City. The new thinking holds that they played a “vital role in the Stonewall riots and the gay rights movement it launched.” But this account is dubious. First, Johnson and Rivera were transvestites, not tansgender. … In other words, they were cross-dressing men. In The Spectator, Moore explains another problem with this version of events: “Rivera was blacked out on heroin 30 blocks north in Bryant Park as the riots unfolded, and Johnson admitted in interviews he wasn’t there when it started.”

    There’s yet more: as LGBTQ-types jockey for public relations advantage, fissures within their community are being disclosed

    Miranda Yardley, a Marxist transsexual blogger, told me. “And as most of the L[esbian] and G[ay] battle has been fought and won, money for LGBT generally means it goes to the T[ransgender].” (Yardley takes a somewhat old-fashioned view of sex, that it cannot literally be changed.)

    Finally, scouring away any residue of doubt the Democrat Party is anything less than grovelingly spellbound by the rainbow lobby,

    [i]n October, Democratic presidential candidates will participate in a special debate exclusively focused on LGBT issues. If candidates’ comments on LGBTQ issues at the primary debates are anything to go by, they will all be tripping over each other to bolster their woke credentials without any real knowledge or understanding of the complexity of the issues.

    It would be

    wrong to assume that this is a left–right issue. In fact, many on the left, especially lesbians and feminists, are concerned about the overreach of trans rights. And many more gay people do not place themselves under the LGBTQ umbrella at all.

    Julian Castro said he believed in “reproductive justice” (i.e., abortion access) for not only women but also trans females (who are male). [!!] …

    Kamala Harris went seamlessly from the legacy of civil rights into “that’s why we need to pass the Equality Act.” … [T]he Equality Act would devastate women’s sports by allowing males to compete and displace them and remove their right to sex-segregated spaces, from prisons to locker rooms, across the country.

    In a from-your-lips-to-God’s-ears profession, Kearns asserts:

    My prediction is that as LGBTQ overreach continues, it will backfire, and the culture will reorient. My hope, then, is that the obsession with identity will die down. And a day will come when people are finally judged by the content of their character — not by the object of their desires.

    As those aforementioned millennial numbers show, some social signals suggest this “backfiring” may already be underway and that ought to embolden those of us who favor what used to be regarded as normal sexual/gender standards.  There’s a long way to go, however, before those viewpoints regain their sway over an outright majority of the population.

    Image: By Gyrostat (Wikimedia, CC-BY-SA 4.0), CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=41173625


    Join the discussion. Leave a comment.

    We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.





    Trending Now on Daily Surge

    Send this to a friend