According to the modest small townsfolk, the immoral decay and rot of the liberal big cities has finally reached where it doesn't belong: the rural areas on the outskirts.
In my hometown, Mercer, PA a substitute teacher recently went viral for wearing a modest dress which went down to the knees. A student took a photo and posted it online. A torrent of outraged parents expressed consternation that the school administration would allow THAT around children. That might seem odd, and maybe even a breach of that teacher's privacy. Who likes to have candid photos snapped of themselves and posted online without one's knowledge? But that was not what people were upset over, and it didn't figure into their moral outrage.
The plot thickens.
So, what were they outraged about? The person in the photo taken by the student, it turns out has a shaved head, and a fading hairline. It turns out they are a trans woman (male to female), and this caused a huge outpouring of moral outrage and overt hostility. Thousands of comments demanding that the "mentally ill, deranged criminal pedophile polluter of the children's minds" immediately be fired. "Entirely unacceptable! This cannot be normalized! The elite inner city pedophiles are trying to groom our children! They must be stopped! This is an epidemic that needs to be quelled immediately!" One commenter bragged, "I told my son that he has permission to refer to that teacher as Mr. Faggot." Another commented remarked, "I remember when students weren't allowed to wear disruptive clothing, and now you have this! The carnival is looking for a bearded lady, so this guy should go apply there! Why is it so hard to dress respectfully, to dress appropriately for the gender to which you're born?"
Another commented, "I don't care what these people do in the privacy of their own home, and that's their right, but there is a time and a place, and this crosses the line! I would pull my child from school, and if I could I would march into that school and drag that vile pervert out of the classroom myself! I have rights about what my child learns!"
Other commenters expressed that they felt it would be nice for students who do not conform to various social norms to know that there are sympathetic teachers, that they're not alone in their alienation. They urged tolerance and understanding, stating that the teacher's gender had nothing to do with whether they were doing their job correctly.
Other commenters responded to the tolerant Christian's plea, "Lady, give it a rest! Those kids aren't gay or trans! They are confused because this evil agenda is being pushed on them by evil Marxists! We are in a battle of good and evil, between God and the Devil. These cross dressers are demonic and they want to drag the souls of our innocent children to hell!"
Legally, transitioning genders isn't considered a crime by the State, nor is wearing a dress. But morally, it is considered a huge faux pas, a horrible crime, by the practical hard-working patriots of Mercer county.
The irony of the situation is that within the last five or so years, several schools in the surrounding areas have seen arrests of teachers for child pornography, for sexual assault, and for cover ups. The perpetrators were cishet white men, all who were church goers, and generally well-liked in their communities. And yet, the outpouring of outrage was limited to 30 or so comments, many of which expressed a call to show grace for the mistakes made by the god-fearing men of the community. Some expressed regret trusting the criminals. But overall, there were no calls to remove people associated with those churches or ways of thinking from the schools. Their ideas about life were deemed irrelevant without even knowing what they are because anyone who dresses like that is a sick pervert (unless it's JD Vance or Bryon Noem). However, when it comes to the trans substitute teacher -- even though they never discussed their ideas about gender with students or made some proclamation about it -- their supposed "ideology" took center stage. But nothing at all is actually said about it, other than anyone who thinks a man can become a woman or vice versa is deeply mentally ill and disturbed and should not be teaching children.
However, if it is pointed out that the religious beliefs in miracles is equally as delusional as thinking women have penises or men have periods -- if for instance, someone believes in the truth of a book that claims donkeys, snakes and burning bushes can speak or stones can be turned into birds, et al. -- then this is apparently not grounds for demanding resignation, even though only an insane person suffering hallucinations could think such a thing. That would be discriminating based on religion, which has a special protected status. As long as something is called religion, any non-sense gets a pass insofar as the teacher does not "explicitly" call it such. Theoretically, it is not legal to discriminate based on sex or gender either. But what happens when the vast majority of parents call a school and demand the removal of the substitute teacher? What happens when a whole town bullies someone because they're gay or trans? The school finds some infraction unrelated to the person's gender. Perhaps they used their phone or something else which goes against the teacher's handbook of codes and rules, and that person is dismissed. Justice served. That's democracy in action: peacefully accomplishing what lynch mobs used to.
This outpouring of bullying takes place in the middle of an "anti-bullying campaign". One gets the sense that the majority of parents, students, and teachers themselves actually find the idea teaching acceptance or tolerance of social, political, religious, et al. differences an absurd, forced program. Surely, bullying someone for believing in the holy trinity, for being autistic, black or a woman is wrong (at least for some), but what about being a "beaner", a "towel head", or a "trans faggot"? Surely people should be bullied for being commies? Using the mean language is disrespectful, but accusing anyone who doesn't fall into line of being mentally ill or a menace to society is simply a "difference in opinion." And now, it's no longer about knowledge, but "opinion". Some even say bringing bullying back would be helpful: on the one hand, bullying in some cases is bad, but in others, it is completely warranted. There's a fine line, and where it is drawn is not so clear. But, many argue, there is a line which shouldn't be crossed, and that is cross dressing, or transgenderism. But where is it drawn normally? If the bullying helps a student conform and get in line, to listen to the teacher, then it's good; but if it "goes too far" and drives a student to kill themselves, then it's bad-- although if they're trans, then it's being trans that made them suicidal, not the fact that they were ruthlessly mocked and ridiculed.
The legibility of social roles, fashion
On the one hand, everyone admits: you can't read a book by its cover; it's what's on the inside that counts. It's a sin to assume you know who someone is simply by looking at them, by gazing upon their meatsuit. The inner world, personality, one's actions, spirit or mind are higher than outward appearance or looks. On the other hand, it's simply taken for granted that when you look at someone, you should be able to immediately, without much effort or thought, be able to register who they are and what they're about. And people go to great lengths to foster this kind of communication. Everyone simultaneously decries stereotypes while relying on them. It is also rather popular to claim that the way people look says something about their inner life.
Punks like to show off how rebellious they are by fostering a rebellious style of dress, until this act of "rebellion" or "provocation" itself is assimilated as another fashion line to be sold for a profit. Cowboys, rednecks, hardworking greasy Proletarians, yuppies, hippies, Jehovah's witnesses, gangsta rappers, the family man, sexy clubbers, ravers, preps, and on and on. In times past, one could tell a nobleman from a peasant, a knight from a lord, a king from all the rest by the dress. The insignia made it all immediately legible. Things have gotten a bit more confusing in modern bourgeois-egalitarian societies. One doesn't have to necessarily strut around in forced regalia, but rather everyone does it willy nilly of their own volition. People willingly foster a fashion sense to set themselves apart. Every child entering school quickly learns what kind of clothes are cool, or what kind of clothes poor losers wear. Whole lifestyle magazines speculate over which kind of fashion trends will take off, what's hot and what's not. And many people are really interested in what the latest and greatest fashion accessories are. Fedoras are out except with autistic men's rights activists; clean cut hair means a neo-nazi, but shaving half your head means you're woke. People today see themselves as advertising billboards. Even those who intentionally foster a modest, plain dress that purposefully ignores gaudy branding are seen to be advertising their reactionary, cult mentality (e.g. Amish, Orthodox jews, mormons etc. etc.)
Moral panic over trans and drag queens has a performative aspect that is often left out of the discussion. It's like the high schooler who picks on the gay kid (or suspected) in the locker room. It isn't completely about what the person being picked on does (not dressing according to the made up standards of decency, not loving the right sex, not expressing the right gender norms, etc.) Even though it's made out to be that way, but also about the insecurity of the one accusing. It's just as much about the bully's need for validation and acceptance: "I'm not a weirdo, I'm normal, I belong, unlike that person!"
The deviation in -- or adherence to -- "normal" behavior makes up one small aspect of a person's personality but that is completely abstracted from and becomes the whole judgement about a person, by which one is expected to decide whether it's positive or negative, shameful or something to take pride in. By accusing the person who shows a difference in behavior of an unforgivable and general perversion (e.g. since they do x, they must also be y; since they wear a dress, they must be a pedophile, a groomer, they want to spread their perversion), one thereby asserts the validity of one's own way of life. A whole set of non-sequitor judgements and assumptions goes along with this one abstraction. The stupidity is that one wants to apply these judgements to whole groups as if every individual was the same, as if it was simply due to nature, and not something that needs to be taken on a case by case basis.
By pointing a finger at "the other", one validates ones imagined moral superiority, and diverts attention away from the chinks in one's own armor, so to speak. So it's no secret that American culture as a whole has a problem with violence towards children: whether it's school shootings, sexual abuse, domestic violence, etc al. The newspapers are filled with these things, and generally by people who are considered to be in good moral standing in their community. It's often reported that "no one saw it coming" when it's the baseball coach, pastor, uncle, step-parent, or other "respected members of the community". Why is that? Because the vigilance and suspicion is directed towards a minority group of outsiders from the start, so no one notices how much children are actually neglected and often harmed in terms of the attention given by parents (as long as they're on their screen and aren't being annoying brats, they're fine), or how the real predators are right under one's nose, hiding in plain sight. So all the harm children get to experience daily -- whether through the popularity contests and competitions schools set up and parents gladly subject their kids to; in the family which codifies all kinds of arcane punishments both physical and psychological in order to mold children into adults able to survive in a harsh competitive society; poverty; or the glorification of sex in pop culture and on and on -- is ignored. That couldn't possibly be worthy of attention. No, it's a trans person, gay person, or drag queen reading a story. The response is that they don't belong, and that's ironic given that they're generally reading a story about accepting others who are different. But the discussion doesn't go to the topic of inclusion/exclusion, or homogeneity/difference-- the friend/enemy distinction is entrenched and goes unquestioned.
Perhaps there's some truth to the bromide that every accusation is a confession, and one needs to add that the less power people have over their lives, their safety and the safety of their children, the more liable they are to lash out at groups they perceive as a threat, even if that threat is completely made up and ignores the real causes of damage. Just look at how American nationalists blame Japan and Mexico for the bad plight of the American working class instead of the actual class of capitalists who are responsible for impoverishing their faithful servants. There is something similar with the moral panic over trans bathrooms and drag queen story time.
The mere existence of someone not conforming to a gender norm is proof that this person is forcing indoctrination or unwanted seduction onto innocent children
"The price homosexuality exacts in the form of childlessness, instability, and now mortal danger from AIDS is not something that most 16 year olds have the capacity to evaluate." --New York Times, 1991
Interestingly, most 16 year olds today know about AIDS, and other sexually transmitted diseases, and that wearing a condom can prevent it, and further that the virus doesn't discriminate based on sexual preferences. When I was 14, my biology teacher taught us about AIDS-- and everyone easily grasped it except the sleeping pill addicted jock named Max who slept through the lesson!
Every 16 year old learns that teenage pregnancy could diminish their job prospects, and they learn about sexual reproduction and puberty at age 10. 16 year olds are even watching a genocide being live streamed in real time. The idea that 16 year olds are oblivious and incapable of learning about topics which makes adults uncomfortable has more to do with the discomfort of adults than the supposed lack of capacities of the teenagers. (Apparently the capacity pops into existence two years later, and they can learn about controversial topics if they are accepted into college. If not, too bad. And apparently today, even these young adults in university don't have the "capacity" to learn about anything considered controversial or "dangerous". From all directions, young people are encouraged to infantalize themselves: you're a perpetual baby, and you should plug your ears and cover your eyes any time any uncomfortable topic arises. You're actually a big helpless baby until you're 35! By no means should you wish to leave your childhood subservience, it's actually the best time of your life, and trust us, it only gets worse, so enjoy it while it lasts and keep feeling endless nostalgia even though the misery still took hold even then from time to time!
It couldn't be that the censors actually just don't have arguments, but only that what they want to censor is dangerous! So what!? Hearing an idea is dangerous?! And riding a dirt bike or quad, lighting off fireworks, putting in an electrical panel, building a fire, using a knife, hunting a deer, playing a contact sport, driving a car, moving livestock from one field to another, using a table saw, drinking with your friends until you puke, dating and falling in love -- none of this is dangerous?! For whatever reason, it's only with wrong-thought that people should live like bubble boy, or like an ostrich with its head in the sand. Life is filled with danger, and it wouldn't be fun or interesting otherwise. So far, no one that I know has died reading Judith Butler-- although it truly is chloroform in print.
Secondly, is the instability caused by homosexuality or by the bad treatment of homosexuals, e.g. ostracizing them from family support or denying employment or housing? As everyone knows: "correlation doesn't equal causation."
Is being without children really some curse? Blessing or curse, everyone gets to calculate about it. Childlessness a curse for whom? For a government that needs new human materials. But no one wants to look at the matter objectively. Everything in the world is apparently organized for one's own subjective satisfaction.
"No judgement": but plenty of parents with their precious angels seem to do little else than scream in aggravation most of the day. Their wonderful abode of familial bliss and harmony consists of complaining that nothing works out the right way, that no one appreciates all the sacrifices, that they do so much and everyone else does nothing. "You took the best years of my life from me!" So, they secretly download tinder and delude themselves into thinking everything would work out completely differently if only they apply the same program to different personnel. And for a minute, things seem green again, until the sun sets, as it always does. And the parents' anxiety and stress levels don't seem to have decreased because their romantic creampie formed legs and came out screaming, and now demands better Christmas gifts while throwing a tantrum.
Today, the attitudes aren't too different in many places. A hard-working concerned citizen morally outraged that a public school did not discriminate against an ugly trans substitute teacher who made bad fashion choices:
"If we are confused, just imagine how confused our children are!"
"No disrespect", but is it really surprising that people who pride themselves on the fact that they haven't picked up a single book in the last 20 years, who read and write on the level of 5th graders despite 12 years of education, and who demonstrate as a point of pride that "you can't tell me nothin'!" are confused? These are people who complain that they can't figure out how to file their taxes -- as if copying the number in box 1a from your w2 form was rocket science. They're proud that they remain willfully ignorant of everything, that their understanding of gender remains at the level of the child in "Kindergarten Cop". Is it any wonder that ignoramuses are confused about something they put zero effort into understanding? (And no, listening to Tucker Carlson on the way to the used car lot isn't helping you understand the truth of anything.)
The medicalization and psychologization of political and social conflicts as disease or illness
Part of fascism was turning every political, economic, philosophical et al. debate into a psychological/biological question of mental health or fitness for life. The German philosopher Nietzsche Political, social failings are seen as emanating from physical weakness. Poverty or failure in competition is because someone has defective genetics, because they are weak. At the same time, this judgement was also filled with moral and aesthetic judgements. The strong are beautiful, the weak ugly. Winners are beautiful, losers are repulsive. (Why is the cockroach considered bad but the butterfly good? Both are insects? An aesthetic judgement about beauty/aesthetics. Why is a dress considered beautiful if a beautiful woman wears it, but something repulsive when a man puts it on? It doesn't lie in the dress itself.) If someone pointed to poverty, a fascist doesn't refute the argument given, but says that this unemployed bum has serious mental illness, that they are a morally and biologically deficient creature who doesn't want to contribute to the health of the nation. Since they "refuse to work", they are not fit for life. (It's just irrelevant that they subjectively do want to, that they put in thousands of applications, but are considered useless or undependable for making profits for a business.) If someone has attractions to the same gender or did not have children, then this demonstrated an illness: they did not want to contribute to furthering the race or creating new workers and soldiers for the nation.
This kind of thinking is just as popular in democracy today. Not a day goes by without hearing that mental health is important. One's mind must be strong. One must be able to cope mentally and emotionally with all the "challenges and obstacles life throws at one". How does one know if one is doing that well enough or not? By empirically measuring the number of days a person shows up to work or school. By measuring their productivity or grades. Everything is treated as a psychological problem of the individual.
Positive thinking is always hot. The most unbearable thing in life is sadness, grief, feeling bad, shame, guilt, unloved or unappreciated, self-destructive, or even neutrality, feeling nothing, anomy, apathy. Most of society, it turns out, is feeling that way most of the time. The "sickness" is idleness, being useless, brooding without a practical object to furnish money from. Being Kafka's Victor Samsa-- the insect rotting in bed. According to the scientific experts in the psychology seminars, these are not just feelings that modern people experience in this kind of society, but real illness, mental sickness, especially if it shifts the scales into disequilibrium. The mind, as it turns out, is like a market supply and demand curve, having a middle point where a healthy balance is struck, regardless of the mental contents which are to be treated as an unknowable and irrelevant black box, and regardless of any concrete daily relations one experiences. A whole new-age, emotional-intuitive literature dedicated to magical thinking, to manifesting desires through mainly thought and Petit-bourgeois business practice, to reading your destiny in the stars, in tea leaves or an easily purchased pack of tarot cards, is a good money maker. Self-help fills the shelves, and despite all the readers, nothing has gotten better. Psychology-lovers protest: that's not the real deal! That's pseudo-science! Our opiate hits much harder!
A whole therapy-psychiatry industry thrives, promising to diagnose and help the sick, many who don't even know they are sick, who even think there's nothing wrong with themselves, because they lack the scientific expertise of highly trained scientific experts of the mind. The sickness lies "deep in the unconscious", which the conscious mind doesn't have access to unless a psychologist can guide the sick patient into seeing what they themselves can't. Former Christian gurus learn to count how many times a person darts their eyes off an object, forgets to raise their hand for a teacher before speaking, taps their foot, or twirls their hair or a pencil, and therefore because they've counted this all up, and talk about the "split or gap" in the mind, the former spiritual gurus prove themselves as hard scientists doing real science. Numbers talk! And they get a handsome payout from the Government for their useful services, which some not-so-appreciative parents see as an imposition that amounts to little more than glorified babysitting for their autistic and ADHD children.
Not only this, but this way of arguing politics is immensely popular again. One does not look at the reasons, analysis, the facts of the matter, the explanation and see if it is coherent, whether there's a better explanation, whether it's true or not and then offer a counter explanation-- no, that is useless because everything is a matter of opinion, of feeling, of wanting to be affected by something that moves you against an enemy. Rather, one accuses one's opponent of MENTAL ILLNESS, of sickness, of madness, of insanity, of immorality, of filth, of degeneracy. This ILLNESS is contagious, and the contagion must be contained by getting rid of the carrier. No carrier, no signal, no transmission vector. It's a convenient message.
Of course, not all diseases are deadly-- so some recommend therapy for these mentally ill political opponents. Talk therapy convinces a neo-nazi that bashing in a foreigner's skull on a bus would land them jail time and would contribute to the further degradation of the functioning of society. So, the neo-nazi learns to be a good Democrat: now he writes his senators demanding the foreigners are deported as quickly as possible in accordance with the citizenship and work visa laws. Everyone is happy. No one can tell apart the fascist from the democrat. The evil man has been mentally reformed, is now a respectable productive member of society (which was already his highest ideal and why he hated all the Others in the first place-- because they took that from him!)
With others, the goal is to get them to accept themselves and the roles that were ascribed to them from birth-- already with the baby, it's clear, they must become this kind of person: a father, a mother, a husband, a wife, this or that. The aim: give up this antisocial, self-centered behavior, become what is demanded of you. Conversion therapy can make lots of money too, and many parents are willing to ship off their problem children whom they love so much except for the fact they just keep acting so revolting with their preferences.
Comments
Post a Comment