I haven't watched Fox News intentionally since 2008. It got weird after Obama got elected. By the way, "Some of this criticism is racist, and reflects structural racism" does not mean, "You are a racist," or, "All criticism of Obama is racist." Anyway, sidebar. Apparently, someone made a mistake over there, posting a picture of a couple ostensibly getting married, one dressed as a groom, and the other as a bride. It was part of a piece defending traditional marriage. The only trouble was, the couple are lesbians.
And I know how it goes, OK? Fox News says batty things routinely. Our "package deal" partisanship makes it easy to jump on and laugh at everything from hypocrisy to mistakes. But...
Marriage can only exist between a biological man, and a biological woman. That's true, and the thing is, even if you want to argue, you know this. It's tragic that in the name of tolerance or inclusivity or whatever you like, that people are wasting energy looking for another definition of "man" and "woman." "Live not by lies," as we say. How should I handle people who are struggling with gender identity, or (ostensibly) not struggling at all? I don't really have a firm plan. But it becomes necessarily political, when it involves law and rights. It's funny; people accuse others of "playing politics" when they don't agree with the political implications. Still others, engaged in the rhetoric of saying, "It doesn't affect you!" are now engaged in pretending that the massive effects that it has on every facet of society aren't really there. Someone is lying. Moreover, it's not my job to decide who the bigots and idiots really are, but I know I will still claim to exist, even if you reject my identity. Catering to trauma-induced delusion on the basis of sophistry and sentiment is pretty stupid. More generally, is depression and suicide rising among this vulnerable population because they lack an affirming community? Or are they depressed and suicidal for other reasons, including gender confusion? It doesn't shock me that teens are confused about who they are; that's definitional of the group. We have to decide if mutilation and sterilization are the ethical responses to that confusion. I say, "No."
Broadly speaking, it goes back to the question, "For what does human sexuality exist?" What is a family? What is not a family? If we say it doesn't matter, we're probably lying, or willfully ignoring the social consequences of pretending not to know. And I think so many people have been conditioned with everything from "less-than-ideal" to, "horrific nightmare" that they can't even really consider the question. People think they're being generous and open-minded. But people have to actually live with the consequences. Most public intellectuals today are insulated from their pronouncements. Lucky for them. Too bad we don't swap out public intellectuals like we do politicians!
Referring to the "right/wrong side of history" is a curiously theistic pronouncement from those who claim we are in danger from religious nuts. We're likely more in danger from those who believe we have no limits.
Comments