LGBT activists don't want anthropologists to ID remains as male or female

[Ana the Ist]

I don't know how accurate this meme is in terms of the big picture....

While it's true that you have some legitimate racists who would prefer to whitewash history, I don't think that's most people (even among staunch conservatives).

The problem is the concept of "bundled ideologies", where people take a concept that most people would see as noble and be on-board with, and bundle in a bunch of extraneous ideologies with it as a "package deal", and when people object to those extraneous ideologies, they're accused of not caring about the noble purpose that they saddled a bunch of baggage to.

It's the ideological equivalent of the poison pill tactic that the legislature uses, where their goal is to either guilt people into voting against their own interests, or run the risk of being labelled as "not caring" about something important.

IE:

Activists: "our message centered around stopping the practice of dog fighting, and also <controversial cause XYZ>"

Joe Smith: Well, I don't support that controversial cause XYZ so I'm not okay with that

Activists: "Joe Smith is pro - dog fighting!!! see!! he just said he opposed our movement!"

You're talking about a kind of logical fallacy called the Motte and Bailey.

It's a reasonable position that is really hard to argue against as a proposition.

Example- we don't want students with non-heterosexual feelings to be bullied.

Then that reasonable position is used to advance a completely different position that few agree with....but seems superficially related.

Example-we will keep children from being bullied by teaching them about non-traditional gender identities and non heterosexualities in kindergarten through 12th grade! Not only that, we can promote these identities and sexualities by emphasizing how they deserve sympathy, heap attention on them, and give them private clubs for each other that their parents won't know about!

When someone objects to the second example by pointing out this is oddly similar to what pedophiles do in the grooming process or that there's a myriad of potential problems with this solution....most obviously, that the promoting and celebration of these identities may cause children to adopt them simply for attention and this can cause problems later should they begin to transition.

The person who really wants to advance the second position.....begins a rhetorical retreat to the original unrelated position as if they simply want to prevent bullying and the near certain suicide that results from it.

This is the rhetorical tactic that the left has used for years now....it's been pointed out and explained more times than I can count. The MeToo movement used this tactic in the "believe all women" slogan. You'd ask what they mean and they would say they simply want rape allegations taken seriously and investigated thoroughly.....then they would engage in a internet pile-ons and the ruining of careers of men who had been charged with nothing nor was any evidence of the allegations provided. This is because the actual position meant by "believe all women" was let's not worry about evidence or actual guilt and simply try to ruin the lives of any man alleged of any behavior....even causing a man's suicide at one point....let alone the many careers ruined.

The people engaging in these types of arguments have done so now for years....and are completely aware of it, and appear aware of its dishonest intentions.

I think it's not only reasonable....but necessary to make them engage with their actual extreme position. If you want to sexualize young children and promote gender identities before sexual feelings are even present and gender identities are formed you are engaging in the same sort of behavior as we know pedophiles do. Calling someone a child groomer is appropriate and they should defend that position. No, they aren't simply trying to prevent bullying.

When you don't allow that rhetorical retreat....it forces them to either stay silent, defend child grooming, or admit that they are trying to promote these ideas.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You do realize that this is classic dogwhistle justification, right?

This is not a dog whistle....it's a whistle.

The behavior described is one of many behaviors that child abuse experts call grooming and have done so for years.

From the American Bar Association....ever heard of them? They're a bunch of lawyers....

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...tanding-sexual-grooming-in-child-abuse-cases/

Under the list of behaviors that are typical in child grooming....

• discussing sexually explicit information under the guise of
• education.

So we can agree that this....along with several other characteristics these "teachers" want to engage in fit the pattern of behavior for child grooming.

Right?

The only difference between us is you trust the teachers to not sexually assault the child. I find that baffling considering how often it happens already.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

This is not a dog whistle....it's a whistle.

Constantly calling any discussion of LGBT issues "grooming," then falling back and saying that you weren't specifically taking about gays being groomers is 100% a dogwhistle

• discussing sexually explicit information under the guise of
• education.

So we can agree that this....along with several other characteristics these "teachers" want to engage in fit the pattern of behavior for child grooming.

That would be grooming if it happened. Florida's "anti-grooming" law was far more restrictive than that though, and people arguing against it were not in favor of teaching "sexually explicit" information to children.

You pointed out the use of the "Motte and Bailey" fallacy by the left in your previous post. You're guilty of it here too. We see plenty of use of the terms "groomer" and pedophile" to refer to anyone trying to discuss any degree of LGBT issues in the presence of children. When called out on the bigotry of that position, you fall back to the unrelated position that people who who are actually engaging in grooming behavior are the problem in an attempt to make the people objecting to your arguments sound unreasonable.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You do realize that this is classic dogwhistle justification, right? The fact is that "grooming" is being used almost exclusively by right-wing media and proponents of these bills to refer to any discussion of homosexuality or transsexuality. The dictionary definition of the term and the actual language of the bill are irrelevant.

ETA: I would suggest reading the actual study, not just articles about it. The authors make it clear that they were specifically looking at instances where the words "groomer" or "pedophile" were used in conjunction with discussions about the LGBTQ+ community, not all uses of the words.

CCDH-HRC-Digital-Hate-Report-2022-single-pages.pdf (counterhate.com)

Also....if you're going to accuse someone of promoting hate against a group....you'll have to be able to tell me who these groups are....

For example, what does the L in LGBTQ stand for? Does it involve women? What's a woman?

If you can't define these things in a meaningful way that describes them as distinct and separate categories....then there is no such thing as LGBTQ. Your accusations are meaningless.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Constantly calling any discussion of LGBT issues "grooming,"

I'm calling 1 issue grooming. I have no idea what LGBT means.

That would be grooming if it happened.

I don't have to wait until child sexual assault happens before pointing out the well established behavior pattern of pedophiles is happening. Waiting until the sexual assault occurs seems likely to harm more children.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I'm calling 1 issue grooming.

Which is...? Be specific. What do you consider to be "sexually explicit information"?

The general argument from the collective political right at the moment seems to be that any mention of transgenderism or homosexuality in any context should be considered sexually explicit. Do you agree with that position?

I have no idea what LGBT means.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Which is...? Be specific. What do you consider to be "sexually explicit information"?

Discussing gender and sexuality to prepubescent children.

Is that specific enough?

 

[rjs330]

I really don't think anthropologists around the world are going to be noticeably influenced by the odd opinions of a few woke liberals in the US.

Funny that anthropologists know what a woman is, a supreme court nominee and the head of a woman's organization don't.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Discussing gender and sexuality to prepubescent children.

Is that specific enough?

That seems like an extremely broad definition of "explicit". I'm not allowed to use the words "man" or "woman"? Discuss someone's parents? Mention that I have a spouse or children? Those all relate to gender and/or sexuality.

 

[rjs330]

Maybe I should start a thread with this link:

Right Wing Media Outlets Discover Idiotic Tweet By Archaeology Student.

This is an indicator of what could be the future. If this kid is a student, how many more believe this way. This is where it all ends up. People actually beliving this garbage get into fields and the next thing you know they are some professor teaching it to their students. Where do you think he got this idea from? Don't be so naive.

 

[rjs330]

Maybe I should start a thread with this link:

Right Wing Media Outlets Discover Idiotic Tweet By Archaeology Student.

This is an indicator of what could be the future. If this kid is a student, how many more believe this way. This is where it all ends up. People actually beliving this garbage get into fields and the next thing you know they are some professor teaching it to their students. Where do you think he got this idea from? Don't be so naive.

 

[RDKirk]

Funny that anthropologists know what a woman is, a supreme court nominee and the head of a woman's organization don't.

So-called "TERFS" do. Germain Greer, Macey Gray, Parker Posey, and JK Rowlings do.

And those are definitely not conservatives.

 

[rjs330]

1. teachers aren't "hard left" though many of us lean left
2. You don't know what the word "grooming" means because the sentence you choose it for is utterly preposterous
3. What we do is make sure that kids who are not transgender, understand that it's not a reason to mistreat, bully, or insult someone.
Kinda like how some white folks needed to be told that with black people don't need to be insulted and maligned.
Strange that it was the right wing who needed to be told to not yell racist epithets at children

Baloney some you are teaching that boys can be girls and girls can be boys. Far too many of you also support boys undressing and showering with girls along with supporting boys competing against girls in women's sports. We have educators that can't define what a woman is. We have teachers who believe men can give birth and teach it to kids.

You are being extremely deceptive if you are just trying to make this about bullying. I can do it without saying a thing about any of it.

 

[rjs330]

So-called "TERFS" do. Germain Greer, Macey Gray, Parker Posey, and JK Rowlings do.

And those are definitely not conservatives.

I didn't mention them. And you know what the left who believes this garbage has done to people like Rowling and Gray.

And the left wants us to believe this is just about anti-bullying when they are the biggest of bullies.

 

[rjs330]

You may have meant that post ironically, but it used to be true.

There used to be a number of ways men physically expressed emotion with each other without it being considered gay. It was American homosexuals who began calling all those things "gay" in the 80s. Now, men who don't want to be labeled gay eschew expressing emotion with each other, except with a silly caveat to warn onlookers that it's not gay.

I think we need a citation on this one.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That seems like an extremely broad definition of "explicit".

Wow....ok....how about this?

I'm willing to go along with any definition of those words you hold. I'm not going to ask you to define them...nor should you try....because I'm pretty sure you can't.

I'm not allowed to use the words "man" or "woman"?

Not if you can't define them no. Imagine how absurd that would be.

Discuss someone's parents?

A parent is someone who has children. No discussion of sexuality or gender required.

 

[rjs330]

That seems like an extremely broad definition of "explicit". I'm not allowed to use the words "man" or "woman"? Discuss someone's parents? Mention that I have a spouse or children? Those all relate to gender and/or sexuality.

No your not allowed. Cause we can't say what a man or woman is. That's promoting violence towards non-conforming people or birthing people. And parents? Are you kidding that brings up the thought that parents are might be a mom and dad. And we all know men can give birth.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Wow....ok....how about this?

I'm willing to go along with any definition of those words you hold. I'm not going to ask you to define them...nor should you try....because I'm pretty sure you can't.



Not if you can't define them no. Imagine how absurd that would be.




A parent is someone who has children. No discussion of sexuality or gender required.

No your not allowed. Cause we can't say what a man or woman is. That's promoting violence towards non-conforming people or birthing people. And parents? Are you kidding that brings up the thought that parents are might be a mom and dad. And we all know men can give birth.

If you have no interest in discussing this in good faith, I think we're done. Don't know why I even bother at this point.

 

[RDKirk]

I think we need a citation on this one.

You kind of had to be there paying attention to what was happening. Things men commonly did with one another, such as arms around shoulders, did not suggest homosexuality. Nobody thought that two men or women rooming together suggested homosexuality.

If you read personal letters written between men and letters written between women from the 1800s, you see great expressions of deep love and affection...without any of it being homosexual. If you look at old photographs of men from the late 1800s, you may see men in intimate embraces...without any of it being homosexual.

Once upon a time, David and Jonathan; the Lone Ranger and Tonto; and Batman and Robin were not considered gay. Men could have those kinds of relationships as deep friends without being gay.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I'm sure my great-great-grandperson would appreciate that.