Transing ChildrenAbigail Shrier Is Wrong - Sue Donym - Substack

submitted by suedonym1984 from suedonym.substack.com

all 5 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks Sue! I appreciate that you connected together a lot of the issues I've been trying to share with anyone whose ear I have including other gay people and sympathetic friends and family of all political backgrounds.

Warning I need to streamline this . . .

I've been thinking that we need a rebranding and need to step away from centering our concerns on "identities", but unfortunately this makes discussions sound more clinical, long-winded and less personal even if it's more accurate. But when we frame the issue as LGB vs. TQ, a lot gets lost in translation in our current political climate due to queer theory and gender identity ideology confusing people about the overwhelmingly sex-based nature of sexual orientation resulting in a lot of legitimate LGB people (meaning they are actually same-sex attracted) now affirmatively identifying exclusively or concurrently with TQ. In many cases actual gay/lesbian people are now considering themselves "straight" through gender identity ideology and gay, lesbian, bisexual, heterosexual, and asexual people are now all "queer" through gender identity ideology and there's no common factual trait that unites them altogether.

Further, to frame the issue as being about sexual orientation vs. gender identity, we end up obscuring the specific issues related to same-sex attraction at play and the disproportionate impact of gender identity ideology on same sex-attracted people regardless of their identity. So I think I'm now going to frame the two relevant categories that are in tension within the "LGBTQ+ community": (1) issues of same-sex attraction and same-sex rights and (2) issues of gender identity and political demands and goals associated with gender identity ideology.

But that gets me to my main point. I know the word "sex" is still considered dirty, hence people using "gender" when intending to refer to biological sex. But I think we need a rebranding of LGB institutions, organizations, and infrastructure as specifically focused on same-sex issues (i.e. same-sex attraction, same-sex behavior, same-sex rights, and homophobia) rather than on lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities. One unfortunate problem is that people with little to no skin in the game are controlling the dialogue based on identity or extant attraction alone and then play the victim (i.e. people who have no need for same-sex rights whether because they're either (1) heterosexual or (2) bisexual but have never had same-sex partners or actual interest in same sex-partners, which does not make them not bisexual but does make them less proximate to issues of same-sex rights).

We need to analyze and talk about the underlying issues in factual, observable sex-based terms rather than exclusively identity terms, and focus on practical needs not ideology and thought control IMO. This means in analyzing and discussing issues breaking things down to biological sex of individuals, the biological sex(es) they are attracted to, and even on top of that you can add in gender identity identification to see where the trends are. From what I have observed, the kids who are getting kicked out of their houses, even if they adopt some sort of trans-identification (whether before or after being kicked out), the real reason is homophobia. And based on my observations and interactions with my local LGBT population, the most disproportionate victims are black biological males who are attracted to other biological males and have engaged in homosexual behavior or are at least suspected of it. Are heterosexual kids who identify as transgender or adopt some other gender identity getting kicked out of their homes anywhere? I've never heard of such a thing. Has anyone else?

[–]SuperGayIsOkay 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Fantastic article that gives great attention to the serious statistical problem with lumping TQ+ with LGB. I've criticized Abigail Shrier's highly aggressive book title choice before and I suspect it may be because, as Sue Donym suggests, some of it may be about conservative dog whistling. She's not an ally for the LGB community.

[–]ChunkeeguyTeam T*RF Fuck Yeah 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

An excellent article. Thanks for posting

[–]usehername 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I appreciate you correcting the statistics, but I also think you need to keep in mind her audience, which is good parents who care about their children and aren't rejecting them, but simply want to save them from the horrors of transition. This is why she focuses on kids who reject their parents instead of parents who reject their kids for being gay.

Also, ‘Minecraft’ is more a thing for ten year olds, rather than college students.

Lol you would be surprised.

But writing things like this is just a dogwhistle to Shrier’s predominantly conservative audience for the old trope about homosexuals being pedophiles (which is false).

Pedophiles have been trying to attach themselves to gay rights movements for decades, and yeah, some of them were gay. Also, the “Boys Who Like Boys Group” does leave a bad taste in my mouth. The people at the shelter aren't likely to be good role models, and with the infantile name and allowed age group, it's just fucking weird. There should be a separate group for minors and the two groups should come together sometimes, but if a group is based on "liking boys" which no adult should and allows adults in the group with children, yeah that's freaky.

How is expressing your natural, in born sexual orientation, ‘sexual exploration’?

She is discussing minors. They (hopefully) don't know what they're doing, hence "sexual exploration". That term is also used for straight kids.

how can you talk about this issue without talking about the disproportionate number of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth who are victims?

I very much agree, but her audience is concerned parents. She is more focused on exactly what the dangers are rather than the orientation of the victims. She defends lesbians several times in her book and you nothing you quoted from her was homophobic in my eyes. Seems like in the case of the “Boys Who Like Boys Group” you were more worried about how it makes gay people look than the safety of actual children. Pedophiles are extremely common and gay people aren't less likely to be pedos. A group based on sexuality should not mix adults and minors, and neither should most non-sexuality-based groups, especially in a homeless shelter. Pedos are drawn to situations like that.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree with a lot of the points here. I've always found Shrier's choice of title to be suspicious, and perhaps a turn-off to the people who need to hear the message the most.