Coercing Attraction
If you're reading this, you've certainly encountered the acronym LGBT. You've probably also encountered at least some of the more expansive forms, such as LGBTQ and beyond. Unless you put effort into keeping up, though, it's likely your cognition runs out past a certain letter (just as most people's knowledge of Pi only extends a few digits).
Unfortunately, if you fall short in your typing, you may find yourself in a bit of hot water - a sin of omission. As in, if LGTBQIA2S+ isn't in your vernacular, someone may have something unflattering to say. For the record, it is an acronym for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and/or Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Two-Spirit, and any other gender identity that isn't what used to be called "straight."
The acronym not only identifies a spectrum of identities, it implies solidarity across those identities. It embodies the progressive premise that you are your identity, that your identity defines your beliefs and cultural/political views, and that if you fall into the latter side of the "oppressor-oppressed" duality, you have common cause with all others on that side.
It's a subordination of individuality to the group and the cause, with both being defined by some self-appointed Best-and-Brightest. If you are of a group, you need to conform to the group’s presumptive policy positions (or be treated as a heretic or apostate).
It's also an oft-used political tactic. Consider PoC, as in "People of Color." Or BIPOC, as in "Black, Indigenous, and People of Color," which seems a bit redundant. Or AAPI, as in "Asian American and Pacific Islander," an amalgamation that groups Mongols with Maoris, Pakistanis with Palauans, and Turks with Taiwanese. The purpose of these sortings isn't about common background or heritage or culture, it's about size. An interest group of a dozen is of no interest to a politician. One of several million, on the other hand, is.
It isn't new, either. Less than a century ago, "Christian" wasn't in common use. People were Methodist, or Episcopalian, or Catholic, or Lutheran, or Evangelical, and so forth. I believe "Christian" came into common political use in the 1950s, in order to amplify political clout. “Latino”( and its Census-Bureau-created predecessor, “Hispanic”) has similar political provenance.
Thing is, you can't coerce comity in a heterogeneous group, no matter the top-level identifier you use to accrete it, especially when one subset within the accretion gets aggressive about views that clash with others. As in, not everyone of the LGTBQIA2S+ identity agrees politically, or shares common beliefs, with everyone else therein.
Here's where the activist wing of the transgender-acceptance movement is driving it off a cliff.
Gender identity is not just about how one sees one's self, it's also about sexual attraction. A gay man is definitionally attracted to men, a lesbian is definitionally attracted to women. And, no matter how much trans-activists insist otherwise, "men" and "women" are defined at least in part by their sexual organs. A man who's attracted to a person with a vagina who dresses and acts in a "manly" way is still considered straight. Ditto for a woman who's attracted to an effeminate or crossdressing person with a penis. There's a sexual attraction spectrum, but it goes beyond behavior and presentation, and extends to private parts.
That's apparently an affront to some trans-activists, who demand that gay men be attracted to transmen who still have vaginas, and lesbians be attracted to trans women who still have penises (the same applies to attraction-demands aimed at straight people, but today I write of the LGBTQIA2S+ cluster).
I don't know where I first saw this, but it drives the point home:
Liberal-minded people are properly aghast at the notion of "conversion therapy," i.e. a structured effort to "un-gay" individuals through various psychological or physical conditioning efforts. Demanding that individuals try to find attractive that which they naturally do not is no different, and is part of the growing rift between LGB and T.
We have at hand a textbook illustration of a movement being derailed by fanatics. Acceptance morphed into coercion, and not just in terms of attraction. Women's sports will, if the fanatics have their way, be destroyed, thanks to a relentless and utterly anti-science drive to eradicate the concepts of "men" and "women." The women's rights movement would similarly be eviscerated. I'll only mention the children that are being coaxed and prodded into decisions that can have horrible, life-long consequences by the cultural capitulation to these fanatics (who are not above bullying and shaming kids who might simply be exploring to commit to transitioning). We don’t let pre-teens drive cars or buy guns or join the military or drink or smoke or sign contracts, but we’re supposed to let them decide on life-altering drugs and surgery?
All to no end. Just as a same-sex-attracted person cannot be "made straight" (even the threat of death by defenestration isn't enough, as Islamic nations have proven), he or she cannot be coerced into liking people with the body parts they'd otherwise eschew.
Moreover, the balance of the members of the transgender movement - trans persons and allies alike - are being swept along in a direction they may not agree, and coerced into supporting views they may not share.
The path to a healthier society rarely includes coercion - and when it does, that coercion should only counter a greater evil, and even then it should be as brief as possible. I wish everyone the liberty to find his or her own happiness, free from pressure or stigma or insult or bigotry, but that happiness cannot include illiberal, forceful demands that others sacrifice their own liberty or happiness.
June is Pride month, and corporate logos, banners, and social media avatars are all getting the rainbow flag treatment. Except where it actually matters, e.g. the aforementioned Islamic nations where being identified as gay ends with being pitched off a rooftop. As reported here.
Some call it woke-washing, others call it rainbow-pandering. Corporate America is doing it for the publicity, and to deflect the angry Twitter mobs constantly looking for targets.
If they really want to show solidarity with the oppressed, they should shoulder some risk. Run that rainbow logo in one of the 70 countries where gay sex remains a crime. Fly “pride” in Iran, or Brunei, or Yemen, or Saudi Arabia, or another of the 13 of those where it’s punishable by death. If they take issue, take your business elsewhere.
Until then, don’t expect me to be impressed by your little virtue signal.
If you enjoy The Roots of Liberty, please subscribe (if you have already, thank you!), and please recommend the blog to your friends! While I share it as much as I can on social media, subscribing ensures you won't miss a post.
If you really like The Roots of Liberty and want to help keep it rolling, please consider becoming a paying subscriber here at Substack, or at a lighter level as contributor to the blog via Patreon.
Thank you for your support!
Yours in liberty,
Peter.
I think it's going to take the LBG people speaking out against the TQ e.t.c people for the madness to finally stop. For now, I just call it alphabet soup. Much easier that way.
Re. the corporate wokeness for pride month, Nabisco joined the fray with their "pride" oreos. White package with black lined doodles, and the cookie itself is stamped in the middle - "PRIDE" instead of "OREO". I roll my eyes every time I see the display which is several times a day, unfortunately