"You don't care about children!" & "Moral panic"

[SpicyMoth]

JKR retweeted something from TheAmazingAtheist being pro gender ideology.
I remember hearing of him before but remembered him being more "Anti-Social Justice Warrior" in terms of views so I was confused & looked into him more to try and make sense of it.

This took me down the rabbit hole of a subreddit called BreadTube, here is rule 2 of the sub;

" 2. Posts should be against the prevailing winds of the internet
BreadTube exists to promote content that goes squarely against mainstream political discourse, which tends to be pro-establishment (liberal or conservative), pro-capitalist, and pro-authoritarian. If a video could get uncontroversial primetime space on any mainstream outlet, it probably does not belong here."

So, me thinking "That seems a reasonable rule, maybe this is a place for actual discourse?" I delve a bit deeper and start looking at what people have posted.
Good grief was I wrong...
One of the top rated posts was a thread linking to this video; e
I'm not super far into the video, but what this woman is saying is just... Coming across as really quite patronising - As if by virtue of not agreeing with her, you're stupid and bigoted.

A lot of other posts seem to be specifically about this topic, and I've noticed a wave online of TRA's using this argument as well;
Basically saying that "Thinking of the children" is the argument being used today w/ gender ideology, and it's the same as the argument that homophobes used to use against gay people/gay rights.
That because people did this in the past and used that excuse for being against homosexuality, that it's happening again with trans people.

Now obviously we know that these two things are not the same at all, who you love has absolutely nothing in common at all with taking irreversible hormones and having surgeries performed on minors (That there is literal proof and evidence of in the form of detransitioner's).

But how do we escape this "Boy who cried wolf" situation that we're in?

Because it very much seems to echo that old children's story... Homophobes didn't like gay people so they lied and said "Oh but think of the children!" when there was never any threat. Then they did it with legalising gay marriage, again still no threat.

Now there's an actual threat to children's safety, and we're told we're lying. That we don't care about children. That we're hateful and phobic.
Meanwhile the number of destransitioner's is growing ever still, and despite this fact, despite the fact that they are living proof of the harm ideology can do, we're still lying and bigoted and we never really cared about kids...

Do they actually not believe us when we tell them our concerns, or are they just refusing to listen?
How do you even combat this?
How can there ever be any meaningful conversation when everything is taken in bad faith?
How can we show that we actually do care about the children in a way that would get through?
How can we show them that homosexuality and trans ideology truly are not the same thing? - Who you love vs. physically altering your body are literal worlds apart from one another, It seems completely mad to me to even compare them...

Much appreciated!

Thanks for posting it spicy. Maybe I am just tired, but I am finding it very hard to focus on it. Her presentation style (as I am tired) takes too much to filter out the guff and get to the substance.

What I did see in the first 5-7 minutes was quite a bit of hypocrisy. Particularly where she spoke about 'over simplification' and emotional rhetoric. It didn't seem to me that she was analysing messaging from 'both sides'. It seems that she talks about 'biases' yet ignores her own. Did she then discuss the over simplification and overly emotional rhetoric used by extreme trans activists?

She implies that all trans people are just living and minding their own business at the start, and well.... that seems a very over simplified stance when you merely start to think about scratching the surface and patently untrue when you consider the harms males in prisons, rape shelters and support groups, sports and so on are already causing.

Was she supposed to be doing some kind of balanced analysis? Or is she just coming at it from the 'be kind and let people get own living' aspect.

I think for older kids they have to teach off the state standards. So yes you can teach about homosexuality, but the teacher can't push their own personal ideas.

"She implies that all trans people are just living and minding their own business at the start, and well.... that seems a very over simplified stance when you merely start to think about scratching the surface and patently untrue when you consider the harms males in prisons, rape shelters and support groups, sports and so on are already causing."

Yes, and this kind of "just living our lives" rhetoric I assume is intended to cover this up and play the victim card and shut down discussion.

I've not been to encyclopedia dramatica for a long time. Didn't take long to find the current version: encyclopediadramatica.online
I then added the name you gave to the end.
I've been on the internet since it started and this is some of the very worst stuff I've seen. I'm not going to post any links. It's incredibly unpleasant and disturbing content. That person has no place in any sane discourse around children and safeguarding. They need therapy and 24/7 adult superivion.

I very much got the same impression!
I think I made it about four fifths of the way through the video before I genuinely couldn't force myself to listen/watch anymore.

Last nail in the coffin for me was when she started saying that GC people are obsessed with children's genitals? Like, the lack of self awareness you have to have to genuinely think that whilst at the same time her side are campaigning for trans surgeries for minors... What? 🤐

The thing that frustrates me the most I think, is that the ideology is so wrapped up in itself that they can't even see where you're coming from when you make it specifically about them? Or refuse to because it goes against the approved script?

An example, and something I frequently use when trying to talk with TRA's is;

Instead of saying puberty blockers sterilise children, I frame it instead as puberty blockers sterilise trans people - I've heard many stories of trans people not realising that they would lose their fertility, or not thinking about it at all, or just changed their mind in general, and then have major regrets about not storing either sperm or eggs. (Blaire White as a prominent example off the top of my head)

When I'm framing it from the perspective of safeguarding all children generally - the hackles get raised, the angry replies flood in, the names are called (I'm sure we've all been privy to how they treat those of us with views like that).

But when I'm framing it as being about trans people being unable to have their own bio children, then suddenly no one has anything to say at all... Everyone stops replying all of a sudden.

And if you start off from that perspective, no one replies or gets triggered at all from my experience. No one even notices most of the time, or if they do they ignore it.

Take from that what you will, but it's certainly given me a lot to think about and definitely seems very telling to me in some sort of way at least.

I haven't really been on since the GirlVinyl thing, wouldn't have linked the archive if it didn't have so much self-incriminatory stuff omg TJ why. Glad to see it's still up in some form, tho. For somebody into boiling water in a sexual way, he's sure got a lot of young people in his audience D:

@Redbird87
I'd never heard of the hot stuff thing before. If I get even a small burn on my finger when cooking I'm unhappy. What he's doing is just beyond my ability to understand, and quite frankly I have no desire to understand. He needs help.

The Republicans are in the process of expanding this law to apply to all grade levels. They're boiling the frog. They started off saying that they're protecting really young children from learning about trans people, but today they're limiting eighteen year olds from learning freely about homosexuality. It's exactly the same kind of poison that resulted in the UK's Section 28.

Teaching children about sex, gender, relationships and sex (the act) isn't a simple topic but the idea that children shouldn't have these topics introduced at a 'very young age' in an age appropriate manner is wrongheaded. Very young children understand heterosexual relationships at a very young age, and we shouldn't be squeamish about them finding out about homosexual ones.

It's hard not to see that laws like these stem from phobia. If there weren't many parents that fear their child being LGBT, laws like this would never gain traction.

@PorcelinaV That's what I'm trying to say -- the argument has to be about policy. If the debate becomes two sides arguing over which cares most about children it's not going to go anywhere very fast.

For older kids I think they have to teach according to the state standards. You can still teach about homosexuality.

If you just let teachers do what they like, some of them will take advantage and push their own left-wing politics on children.

No, you shouldn't be able to teach kids anything you like; just as, if conservative teachers were pushing their viewpoints on homosexuality in schools we all know that liberals would want rules against it. The legislation in question limits bias on both sides, assuming that the state standards are OK.

As far as I know, all section 28 did was stop local education authorities from promoting homosexuality to children. So it didn't stop neutral education about homosexuality.

What is 'neutral education about homosexuality'?

How does it compare to the 'education' one receives about heterosexuality?

They started off saying that they're protecting really young children from learning about trans people, but today they're limiting eighteen year olds from learning freely about homosexuality.

Do you understand that homosexuality and gender identity ('trans people') are two very different issues? To the extent that they are in many ways in opposition to each other?

I can't see anything about not teaching 18-year-olds about homosexuality in the bill that I posted the link to (although I think I misread it earlier):

Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.

So it does say that there shouldn't be any teaching about sexual orientation before grade 4. I don't agree with this aspect, since some of the children might have same sex parents, and this should be seen as perfectly normal. But for older children it just says that the education should be age- or developmentally-appropriate. What is the problem with that in your opinion?

But gender identity should definitely not be taught to children of any age. Transsexualism is for adults and it is not appropriate for children to be told that they might be transsexual, since this is a topic for adults.

It's hard not to see that laws like these stem from phobia. If there weren't many parents that fear their child being LGBT, laws like this would never gain traction.

'T' has nothing to do with LGB. Fearing that your child might be led to believe that they are 'born in the wrong body' and need medical and surgical treatment to fix this is nothing like homophobia.

@OldCrone
It's hard not to see that laws like these stem from phobia. If there weren't many parents that fear their child being LGBT, laws like this would never gain traction.

'T' has nothing to do with LGB. Fearing that your child might be led to believe that they are 'born in the wrong body' and need medical and surgical treatment to fix this is nothing like homophobia.

T has nothing to do with LGB in the sense of sexual attraction, but there are examples of homopobic parents encouraging T to avoid having a gay child. Susie Green of Mermaids said in her TED talk that her husband was happier with a T child than a gay child. This is homophobia.
There are many examples where the parents of a T child seem to have undue influence over the destination of the child instead of helping the child to make their own choice. More examples: Jazz Jennings and her mom. This woman on Triggernometry who worked for a trans support organization who states in her interview that some ( not all ) of the parents were making the decision that was best for them not the child. These are examples of homophobia being part of the T journey for some T children.

Neutral would be, you aren't telling people it's either sinful or morally acceptable.

You can do pretty much the same for heterosexual sex also.

T has nothing to do with LGB in the sense of sexual attraction, but there are examples of homopobic parents encouraging T to avoid having a gay child. Susie Green of Mermaids said in her TED talk that her husband was happier with a T child than a gay child. This is homophobia.

Exactly. That is the point I was trying to make (unsuccessfully, it seems). Homophobia can result in parents transing a child. This is completely different from parents who are worried that schools might indoctrinate their child into thinking that they are trans, when they might just be a child who will grow up to be gay or one who simply rejects gender stereotypes.

'T' is in direct opposition to LGB.

It's hard not to see that laws like these stem from phobia. If there weren't many parents that fear their child being LGBT, laws like this would never gain traction.

The worry that your child might be indoctrinated by the school to think that they need to have their body medically changed to fit their personality (or sexual orientation) is completely different from homophobic parents worrying that their child might grow up to be gay (and sometimes encouraging them to have their body medically changed as a result).

I don't see concern over indoctrination by schools in the ideology of gender identity as any sort of phobia.

I firmly believe that children should be taught that being gay is okay, healthy, normal, and 'morally acceptable'. I'm sorry that you don't.

Well I'm sorry that you want to push your political and ethical values on other people's children. I imagine you wouldn't like it happening in the other direction.

A parent having a preference towards a trans child over a gay one is most certainly homophobic. I'm sceptical about the notion this is a common situation however. Gay people are far more accepted by society than trans people, which makes two conclusions very straight forward: (1) a trans child is far less likely to be accepted by their parents than a gay one & (2) a parent is going to be far more worried about society's acceptance of a trans child than a gay one. An epidemic of parents or conspiracy of schools 'transing' children seems completely preposterous and poorly evidenced.

So it does say that there shouldn't be any teaching about sexual orientation before grade 4. I don't agree with this aspect, since some of the children might have same sex parents, and this should be seen as perfectly normal. But for older children it just says that the education should be age- or developmentally-appropriate. What is the problem with that in your opinion?

The most obvious issue here is that the definition of 'age appropriate' in this case is being set by people like Ron DeSantis, a rich, powerful white man that recently signed into law a bill that bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. On average women learn they are pregnant five and a half weeks after conception, i.e. it will be illegal to abort around half of pregnancies even if an abortion is sought immediately. People like DeSantis will happily send the United States back to the dark ages.

Ironically DeSantis doesn't see T as separate from LGB.

He says 'think of the children' as they roll back the rights of trans people.
He says 'think of the children' as they roll back the rights of gay people.
He says 'think of the children' as they roll back the rights of women.

That's why LGBT people need to stand together. Not because they are the same. But because at the end of the day their fight is against a world that wants to force them to be 'normal', rather than themselves.

Should children be told that hitting one another is morally unacceptable?

The most obvious issue here is that the definition of 'age appropriate' in this case is being set by people like Ron DeSantis, a rich, powerful white man that recently signed into law a bill that bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. On average women learn they are pregnant five and a half weeks after conception, i.e. it will be illegal to abort around half of pregnancies even if an abortion is sought immediately.

What has this to do with teaching children about gender identity and sexual orientation?

Political neutrality applies to things that are controversial in contemporary society.

It doesn't apply to things like slavery or your own example.

Now here is a question for you: would you think it acceptable if conservative teachers started pushing their views on abortion to children in schools?

Is that OK? Or do you think that maybe teachers shouldn't be indoctrinating children with their own personal politics?

Who decides what is 'controversial in contemporary society'?

I firmly believe that children should be taught that being gay is okay, healthy, normal, and 'morally acceptable'. I'm sorry that you don't.

I think that too, but I don't think teachers should be hanging Pride flags in classrooms or in any other way promoting the idea that being gay makes you somehow special and interesting. Give me "neutral education" any time over that flavour of corporate-sponsored creepiness.

It just always seems like wilful misinterpretation

That's because it is wilful misinterpretation. The predators latching onto the gay rights movement in the past did that quite consciously and deliberately so that they could lump opposition to their "cause" into the same category as opposition to gay rights. The same playbook is being used again.

You going to answer my question first?

Are you happy having conservative teachers pushing their views on abortion in the classroom? Do you think that's appropriate for teachers to be promoting controversial and partisan viewpoints to other people's children?