Which twin has the propaganda coup?
Guardian US columnist Moira Donegan waves the flag for Magic Gender:
The politicization of transgender children in the US is one of the most astounding coups of propaganda and organized animus in recent history. Rarely has so much attention and rage been directed at such a minuscule number of people, and more rarely, still, have those people been the most vulnerable and blameless among us: kids and teens.
That’s so distorted it borders on lying. It’s not “organized animus” to try to stop people mutilating children at the behest of an ideology that claims sex is switchable. The rage is not, of course, directed at the children, but at the adults messing up the children’s bodies. Donegan can’t really be unaware of that.
The first state to pass a ban on transition-related care for minors was Arkansas, in April 2021; less than four years later, more than half of states have such a ban on the books.
It’s not care. It’s tampering at best and destruction at worst. There is no “transition” so “transition-related care” is not care; it’s a horrible mistake.
These changes in public attitudes towards trans youth – from a broad if imperfect sentiment of tolerance to a widespread and politically weaponized attitude of hostility toward a small minority of kids – did not emerge by accident. It was the product of a deliberate, conscious effort to radicalize large swaths of the United States, and significant chunks of state policy, into a hostility towards a few children.
It’s just a lie to claim that not mutilating children is hostility toward those children. Nobody is trying to “radicalize” people into hostility towards the children being mutilated.
Donegan should be embarrassed to have written this dishonest crap.
Yeah, it’s a stinking heap of self-contradictory crap. It couldn’t even get past the caption for the opening photo before it went off the rails.
Gender conformity is what the trans activists are pushing, when they say that little boys who seem insufficiently masculine must not really be boys at all. The folks who are saying that little boys can act however they want, but still be boys, and little girls can be tomboys without having to have their breasts cut off, are the ones fighting gender conformity.
How far would one get with that sort of argument in a murder trial? “I only killed one person, an insignificant number compared with the number I didn’t kill.”
I’m not so sure there’s been so much a change in attitudes towards trans as there has been a change in awareness. People asked if they supported trans rights tended to say yes; when the men started showing up in the locker rooms next to their daughters, and in the sports opposing their daughters, or defeating them for a place on the team, that’s when people ‘changed’. Except I don’t think they changed. When you say ‘trans rights’, most of them assumed they meant rights – freedom from discrimination in work, in housing, in shopping, etc. They didn’t realize they were being asked to agree to a set of ‘rights’ that are not rights for anyone else – the right to be seen by others as you see yourself, and the right to have this enforced at the highest political levels. They didn’t realize they were expected to assent to the erasure of women, and the invasion of women’s spaces by male bodied people – even if said male bodied people had their penises removed.
A C-B. There was actually an interview with Charles Manson who said that maybe he should have killed hundreds of people to be really successful.
From the article
Well, is it? The Supreme Court could have called upon Sally Hines as a hostile witness. She has authoritatively* written
Doesn’t sound very immutable to me. And, given Donegan’s dishonest framing (see OP above), I wouldn’t trust her characterization of any of these proceedings. From the context, I’m guessing that Alito was doubtful if transness is “real” or “immutable” not that people claiming to be trans aren’t “real” . There is a big difference, and one which transactivists (and captured journalists) have a history of confusing and substituting. It’s the familiar trans cry wolf tactic of accusing critics of gender ideology of denying trans people’s “right to exist.” But refusing to accept a given putative explanation or hypothesis for some human behaviour or characteristic does not negate the existence of anyone. If it did, rejection of astrology would entail the denial of the right of all human beings to exist, as nobody is really a “Scorpio,” or a “Leo,” or anything else in astrological terms, because astrology is crap. That doesn’t mean that people born in the time periods ascribed to those “star signs,” or any other, somehow don’t exist, just that astrology’s explanatory scheme is invalid. Nobody makes that kind of “genocidal” accusation in regards to the defence of the validity of astrology, but trans activists mischaracterize any pushback against gender ideology in exactly this way all the time, having successfully used this excuse to float their “NO DEBATE” strategy for years. Here, it looks like Donegan is doing more of the same.
And as for “politicizing” and “weaponizing” trans “kids”, trans activists have been doing this for years, using them as human shields to deflect attention from the white male fetishists and unethical “clinicians” leading the trans “movement.” Even calling these disphoric children “trans kids” is political, because it’s jumping immediately from whatever type or degree of sexual or “identity” discomfort they might have, to a diagnosis of “born in the wrong body” that is supposedly only treatable through drastic pharmeceutical interventions and extreme body modification. This leap of terminology, and its accompanying rush to irreversible “treatments,” allows activists to ignore the existence of desistance, which would reduce the numbers of supposedly “trans” youth by approximately 75%, robbing the movement of future, committed activists, and the clinicians life-long customers. What was that about “innateness” and “immutability” again? One gets the distinct impression that the haste involved in pushing these children into the gender abbatoir is in order to prevent desistance. They don’t want these children to get away. Why else outlaw the “talk therapy” that would aid children’s personal growth and acceptance of their bodies just as they are as “conversion therapy”? Why else enforce “affirmation only” as the sole path of therapy? Why condemn so many children to a lifelong debilitation that they could have avoided by just growing up? If that’s not politicization and weaponization of children, I don’t know what is.
So there’s actually a whole lot of truth behind the (supposedly) “right wing” accusation of “They’re coming for your kids!” It turns out that they are. If not their actual bodies, then at least their minds. On the flag pole of the public school just a few blocks from where I live, more often thanot, “Pride Day/Week?Month or not, the “Pride Progress” flag flies right beneath the Canadian one. (And this is the “Intersex Inclusive” version with the yellow triangle and purple circle at the left hnd edge. Even though “intersex” is considered to be an inaccurate and offensive term for DSD conditions. That doesn’t matter if the old, inaccurate term is usefull to trans activism.) The teaching of important civic virtues such as tolerance and respect is being used as cover for teaching bullshit.)
And in the end there’s always this:
What’s in it for her? What’s in it for the Guardian? What can trans activism give them in return for their souls? How can they not see the destructive, misogynistic, regressive, and fundamentally dishonest movement. In the normal course of events, you’d have expected crusading, investigative reporters and their courageous, supporting editors to sink their teeth into this kind story of a broad, multi-institutional, mutually-reinforcing, corruption rather than become cheerleaders and apologists for it. But what’s in the trough for them?
*Or at least as “authoritative” as anyone can get in the fields of Unicorn Husbandry, or the biogeography of Snarks
[…] a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Which twin has the propaganda […]
You can pretend that you never really went along with trans nonsense (at least not the “really crazy stuff”) or you can double down. Which makes Donegan one of the more honest ones. At least she’s not creating a new lie.