They’re “becoming aware” because Tatchell and his comrades make them aware. Tatchell proselytizes. Gender ideology wants more and more and more recruits, especially very young ones.
There seems to be this assumption that “the kids” are like prophets. Whatever they do is a sign of where History is headed. It is, in short, glorious and by-definition-good “Progress”. Why they do anything doesn’t matter, only that they do it. Progress has a plan, and Progress moves in mysterious ways.
If it’s got a rainbow or pastel flag, any change in its direction is Progress, and Progress must be supported. Why a change occurs is almost irrelevant from the perspective of those devoted to Progress, because action that brings the utopia nearer is good by definition. Such action is itself Progress, and Progress must be supported. If something happens as a result of Progress, then that, too, is Progress, and Progress must be supported. Is Genderism illogical and irrational? Does it demand the unethical? Leap past your concerns and doubts. Leave them behind, for Progress doesn’t require justification. Everything else must wait, because Progress demands your support, and Progress must be supported.
Kierkegaard wrote of a “teleological suspension of the ethical” in Fear and Trembling to describe Abraham’s submission to God’s demand for the sacrifice of Isaac. God’s design, the telos that He impressed upon all of Creation, supersedes everything else. All ethical reasoning is suspended in submission to the divine will. Suspending ethical reasoning in this way is illogical and irrational, however, because the suspension itself can be analyzed in ethical terms. Getting past this metaphorical gap requires a mental leap away from logic and rationality. (One could even argue that such a gap is itself evidence of the divine.)
Now, I happen to think Kierkegaard was actually a literary troll doing performance art to mock the obscurantist mysticism of Continental philosophy, but this explicitly nonsensical idea of a teleological suspension of the ethical does seem like a decent account of how otherwise moral people can support monstrosity. They willingly suspend their normal ethical processing, and everything represented by the divine, or the ideology, or the party, or whatever becomes a self-justified good. Taken as a description of how people do behave rather than of how they should, it’s somewhat compelling. And horrifying.
Particularly when it’s introduced as ‘the way things are’ to children who have a very narrow framework of reference to fit this into. A child’s small worldview can become poisoned with this shit pretty easily.
I can only imagine that former supporters of NAMBLA are looking at this and high-fiving each other. The LGB movement had the good sense to kick NAMBLA out of the tent back in the day, but now mainstream ‘community’ leaders are doing everything they can to sexualise kids and then say – see they want it, what’s the big deal?
Yes I know, not all trans, and even more so not all LGB, but do we think the homophobes are going to be nuanced about using this as an attack strategy to roll back hard won gay rights? I think they’ll seize on it with gusto. There’s a time, place and way for sex education and this isn’t it.
twiliter: Yeah, the way it’s introduced to children smacks of how religion is introduced to children. Even in adults, we often see the tendency to engage with “progressive” tenets in the same way as with religious mystery. So what are we to expect from those exposed to it from childhood?
There seems to be this assumption that “the kids” are like prophets. Whatever they do is a sign of where History is headed. It is, in short, glorious and by-definition-good “Progress”. Why they do anything doesn’t matter, only that they do it. Progress has a plan, and Progress moves in mysterious ways.
If it’s got a rainbow or pastel flag, any change in its direction is Progress, and Progress must be supported. Why a change occurs is almost irrelevant from the perspective of those devoted to Progress, because action that brings the utopia nearer is good by definition. Such action is itself Progress, and Progress must be supported. If something happens as a result of Progress, then that, too, is Progress, and Progress must be supported. Is Genderism illogical and irrational? Does it demand the unethical? Leap past your concerns and doubts. Leave them behind, for Progress doesn’t require justification. Everything else must wait, because Progress demands your support, and Progress must be supported.
Kierkegaard wrote of a “teleological suspension of the ethical” in Fear and Trembling to describe Abraham’s submission to God’s demand for the sacrifice of Isaac. God’s design, the telos that He impressed upon all of Creation, supersedes everything else. All ethical reasoning is suspended in submission to the divine will. Suspending ethical reasoning in this way is illogical and irrational, however, because the suspension itself can be analyzed in ethical terms. Getting past this metaphorical gap requires a mental leap away from logic and rationality. (One could even argue that such a gap is itself evidence of the divine.)
Now, I happen to think Kierkegaard was actually a literary troll doing performance art to mock the obscurantist mysticism of Continental philosophy, but this explicitly nonsensical idea of a teleological suspension of the ethical does seem like a decent account of how otherwise moral people can support monstrosity. They willingly suspend their normal ethical processing, and everything represented by the divine, or the ideology, or the party, or whatever becomes a self-justified good. Taken as a description of how people do behave rather than of how they should, it’s somewhat compelling. And horrifying.
Good one NiV, and it IS monstrous. It’s a teleology of decadence, not progress, but they don’t see it that way.
Particularly when it’s introduced as ‘the way things are’ to children who have a very narrow framework of reference to fit this into. A child’s small worldview can become poisoned with this shit pretty easily.
[…] a comment by Nullius in Verba on Becoming […]
I can only imagine that former supporters of NAMBLA are looking at this and high-fiving each other. The LGB movement had the good sense to kick NAMBLA out of the tent back in the day, but now mainstream ‘community’ leaders are doing everything they can to sexualise kids and then say – see they want it, what’s the big deal?
Yes I know, not all trans, and even more so not all LGB, but do we think the homophobes are going to be nuanced about using this as an attack strategy to roll back hard won gay rights? I think they’ll seize on it with gusto. There’s a time, place and way for sex education and this isn’t it.
twiliter: Yeah, the way it’s introduced to children smacks of how religion is introduced to children. Even in adults, we often see the tendency to engage with “progressive” tenets in the same way as with religious mystery. So what are we to expect from those exposed to it from childhood?