Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[Wahoo Redux]

Is marching around with a sign inciting violence against a particular group of people a form of assault?

No.

These people can be held accountable if they do indeed cite violence.  But not their language.

Or if that sign says they are inferior, disease-riddled beings that should not be allowed to live in polite society, is that a form of libel?

I don't believe expression can be libel if it is a form of opinion.  Hateful, yes, libel, no.

Someone with a law degree might correct me.

And if children see those signs that say these things against their own communities or their parents' identities, is that not child abuse?

No.  Again, it is a hateful, terrible thing, but not abuse.  I certainly don't think you can be arrested for these things.  And, as always, we cannot use children for an excuse to limit what adults say and do.  Remember that the objection to the drag queens are the damage they do to children.  The reason for the attempts to outlaw CRT is the spurious defense of children. 

[Wahoo Redux]

Keep all Catholic priests away from children?  Really?   You didn't actually just say that, did you?

Yes, I did.

Do you seriously have no idea how big the problem is!?!?!

Remember that although a small minority of RC priests are/have been pedophiles, and assorted corrupt bishops did cover for them, most RC priests have never been pedophiles (although many are homosexuals), and, of course and most centrally, the RCC does not teach that any form of child-adult sex is acceptable, whereas that is exactly the teaching of NAMBLA.

The point is, my friend, that if you are rightfully worried about NAMBLA then you should be doubly worried about the Catholic church. The problem with Catholic pedophilia is centuries old and worldwide.  Do not bury your head in the sand.

I'll refer to Wikipedia because it is easiest; you may challenge their facts if you like:

By the 1990s, the cases began to receive significant media and public attention in countries including in Canada, United States, Chile, Australia and Ireland, and much of Europe and South America.[11][12][13] In 2002, an investigation by The Boston Globe led to widespread media coverage of the issue in the United States. Widespread abuse has been exposed in Europe, Australia, Chile, and the United States, reflecting worldwide patterns of long-term abuse as well as the Church hierarchy's pattern of regularly covering up reports of abuse.[note 1]

From 2001 to 2010, the Holy See examined sex abuse cases involving about 3,000 priests, some of which dated back fifty years.[14] Diocesan officials and academics knowledgeable about the Catholic Church say that sexual abuse by clergy is generally not discussed, and thus is difficult to measure.[15] Members of the Church's hierarchy have argued that media coverage was excessive and disproportionate, and that such abuse also takes place in other religions and institutions, a stance that dismayed critics who saw it as a device to avoid resolving the abuse problem within the Church.[16]

****

Sexual abuse in the Catholic Church has been reported as far back as the 11th century, when Peter Damian wrote the treatise Liber Gomorrhianus against such abuses and others. In the late 15th century, Katharina von Zimmern and her sister were removed from their abbey to live in their family's house for a while partly because the young girls were molested by priests.[30] In 1531, Martin Luther claimed that Pope Leo X had vetoed a measure that cardinals should restrict the number of boys they kept for their pleasure, "otherwise it would have been spread throughout the world how openly and shamelessly the Pope and the cardinals in Rome practice sodomy."[31]

****

On 3 October 2021, an independent commission set up by the Bishops' Conference of France released a report[205] estimating that the ranks of the 115,000 Catholic priests and other religious officials in France since the 1950s have included about 3,000 abusers.[206][207] The report estimates that 216,000 children were abused by Catholic priests between 1950 and 2020, and that accounting for abuse by other Catholic church employees increases the total number to around 330,000.[208] Around 80% of the victims were boys.[209]

****

The Associated Press estimated the settlements of US Church sex abuse cases from 1950 to 2007 totaled more than US$2 billion.[105] The figure was more than $3 billion in 2012 according to BishopAccountability.[62][101]

[marshwiggle]

obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

"Obstinate" is curious. If adults categorically reject sexual relationships between adults and children, that's certainly obstinate, so I guess that does count as bigotry.

"Unreasonable" is completely in the eye of the beholder. Clearly, anyone assumes their own beliefs are "reasonable", and anyone assumes beliefs they strongly disagree with to be "unreasonable".

So it really does come down to a term used for any beliefs the speaker doesn't like. It's not helpful for actually identifying legitimate concerns that people might have, and tends to imply that none exist.

It's simple, Marshy.  You are looking to rationalize your own prejudice.

As I posted, as we all know, the problem with adult/child sexual relationships is that we know it damages the child.  This belief is not a "prejudice."  This belief is a well documented phenomenon.

Certainly you can see this, right?  Or are you just being obstinate?  Those are not rhetorical questions.  I'm actually asking.  Do you really think it is a "prejudice" to oppose pedophilia?  I'm actually asking.  Don't run away.

No, I don't think it is "prejudice" to oppose pedophilia. Neither do I think it is "prejudice" to say it's wrong to administer "puberty-blockers" to children. I don't think it's "prejudice" to say biological males should not be put in womens' prisons, or compete in womens' sports, or be allowed in womens' shelters.

Should we allow Catholic priests in the company of children?  This is not a rhetorical question.  I'm actually asking.  Are you going to ignore that?

Priests, teachers, coaches, scout leaders, etc. should all have the same kind of vetting and precautions taken. Most organizations now have policies and procedures in place to reduce the risk of theses things, but even still parents should not let their kids be in situations where they are alone with some adult other than a trusted family member. That goes for adults in all of the categories above.

If you have a problem with LGBTQ----for whom we have no evidence of harm any more than any other demographic----you have an unreasonable prejudice based upon no evidence.

"A problem" is way too vague to be useful. I gave examples above of specific situations that I take issue with. I probably have at least "a" problem with every organization, institution, political party, etc. that I know of.
And I would assume anyone that knows me very well would have at least "a" problem with something I think or do.

We tread a lot of water here. 

The things you object to above have nothing to do with libraries, are anomalies, are fair to object to, and (again) are very rare anomalies and thus not really worth objecting to.  Most people agree with your objections, myself including.

But it's considered "bigoted" to raise those issues at all. If the activists would admit that those are totally legitimate concerns, and the law should reflect that, then much of the conflict would disappear.

And that is not what I am talking about.  You had to dig really hard to find something to object to, didn't you?

As above, it's precisely the "all or nothing" stance demanded by the activists that means these kinds of issues aren't even supposed to be discussed publicly. It's not "digging"; it's pointing out the problem with the totally inflexible rules about what "support" is supposed to mean. As I said, if the activists accepted these real concerns and addressed them, this wouldn't be nearly the conflict it is.

And yes, try not to point out the obvious. Yes, parents should try to protect their kids. Yes, all organizations have abuse (including high ed).  But the Catholic church has a massive, generational, and pervasive problem with child abuse. Nice try sidestepping the issue, but if there is one demographic that should be banned from working with kids in the library, it is not the drag queens.  Do you disagree?

Have I read you wrong, Marshbeast?  If the issue does not involve sports, bathrooms, or prisons, are you okay with the LGBTQ community?  Honest not rhetorical questions: is it okay with you to have Heather Has Two Mommies on your public library shelves, and would you be okay with a drag queen reading during a story hour at your local public library?

What consenting adults do in their own homes is their own business. I think the vast majority of people believe this, and I think you'd find (in any western country) a very small portion of the population favouring criminalization of homosexual activity (for instance) between consenting adults. Similarly, I imagine you'd find a very small portion who would criminalize how people dress, other than the existing kinds of laws about public nudity, etc.

Drag queen story time has the same problem as things like BDSM displays in Pride parades which are supposed to be "family-friendly"; it sexualizes content and situations for children who are young enough that it doesn't really belong on their radar at all. Heterosexual displays that are similarly explicit also don't belong in those settings for the same reason.

(Just a side note: It's recognized as normal that some kids (and even adults) are freaked out by clowns. Why isn't is similarly OK to be freaked out by a guy with a full beard in a dress? It's a similarly incongruous sight. And the clowns aren't supposed to be dangerous either, but their strange appearance is unsettling.)

So I'm not going to protest "Heather Has Two Mommies" being on the library shelves, although I have the same issue with its being read to young children *in school as for drag queen story time; it makes sexuality a much more explicit issue for children who are young enough that it shouldn't be on their radar yet. (And if the "fair" alternative would be to avoid having readings from any books like that including ones with heterosexual parents, I'd be OK with that. Until it is time to explain human reproduction to children, sexuality shouldn't be introduced in any other context.)


*I make a big distinction between things children can access, and things that adults expose them to when they are a captive audience. Adults in those situations always have an ideological agenda, whether liberal or conservative.

[Wahoo Redux]

But it's considered "bigoted" to raise those issues at all.

Which "issues" in particular?  Trans men on women's teams?  No, a majority think men-at-birth should not compete on women's teams.  You too can look this stuff up:

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/29/1107484965/transgender-athletes-trans-rights-gender-transition-poll

But again (and I cannot tell if you are being obstinate, sidestepping, or obtuse), these are very rare problems.  Most of us are concerned with bigger issues dealing with LGBTQ rights.

If the activists would admit that those are totally legitimate concerns, and the law should reflect that, then much of the conflict would disappear.

Bullshit.  There are very few actual, real world problems with LQBTQ people, certainly less than cisgender men (look up crime stats by gender; look up violence in particular; look up the amount of damage men do) and less than, you guessed it, Catholic priests.

No Marshy, you are a good man, I am sure, but your fixation on a few minor issues that only affect a tiny percent of any population is a bit, well, bigoted.  You are looking for a reason to object.

As above, it's precisely the "all or nothing" stance demanded by the activists that means these kinds of issues aren't even supposed to be discussed publicly. It's not "digging"; it's pointing out the problem with the totally inflexible rules about what "support" is supposed to mean. As I said, if the activists accepted these real concerns and addressed them, this wouldn't be nearly the conflict it is.

More B.S. strawmaning, my friend.

Now we are blaming "activists" for not worrying enough about a swim team.

Drag queen story time has the same problem as things like BDSM displays in Pride parades which are supposed to be "family-friendly"; it sexualizes content and situations for children who are young enough that it doesn't really belong on their radar at all. Heterosexual displays that are similarly explicit also don't belong in those settings for the same reason.

Wait, wait, wait...

How does a drag queen "sexualize" anything if they are wearing publicly appropriate attire?

Wearing a dress and makeup "sexualizes" someone?

That's YOUR hangup, Marshman. 

(Why isn't is similarly OK to be freaked out by a guy with a full beard in a dress? It's a similarly incongruous sight. And the clowns aren't supposed to be dangerous either, but their strange appearance is unsettling.)

"I'm not a bigot, but..."

I do so love your comparisons.

Again, YOU'RE the one with the hangup.  I think you need to deal with it.

it makes sexuality a much more explicit issue for children who are young enough that it shouldn't be on their radar yet. (And if the "fair" alternative would be to avoid having readings from any books like that including ones with heterosexual parents, I'd be OK with that. Until it is time to explain human reproduction to children, sexuality shouldn't be introduced in any other context.)

So..."Heather Has Two Mommies" has sex in it?

Nope.  Sure doesn't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPELRbTINk

YOU are fixated on the sexuality of these folks.  Not me.  Not the kids.  YOU.

Every one of your objections is you projecting your hangups.  This is pure bigotry, buddy.  Plain and simple.

*I make a big distinction between things children can access, and things that adults expose them to when they are a captive audience. Adults in those situations always have an ideological agenda, whether liberal or conservative.

Good reason not to take your kids to church, huh?

[ciao_yall]

But it's considered "bigoted" to raise those issues at all. If the activists would admit that those are totally legitimate concerns, and the law should reflect that, then much of the conflict would disappear.

It's not "bigoted" to raise an issue if one is thoughtful and respectful of the people involved.

For example, wondering about the inherent physical differences of a post-pubescent transgender woman in a sport is a fair question.

Oddly enough, these were similar reasons that sports were segregated back in the day. In a similar way, we decided that performance in sports was partly but not entirely based on different individual physical characteristics and there was no way to completely eliminate these differences. Hence, plenty of diversity on sports teams today.

Accusing a woman of changing genders just so she can get an athletic scholarship/ gold medal/ Wheaties box is clueless at best. Much easier and less stressful ways to pay for college or achieve fame and fortune.

[Diogenes]

Drag queen story time has the same problem as things like BDSM displays in Pride parades which are supposed to be "family-friendly"; it sexualizes content and situations for children who are young enough that it doesn't really belong on their radar at all. Heterosexual displays that are similarly explicit also don't belong in those settings for the same reason.

Little Shop of Horrors has overt references to BDSM.

Ursula from The Little Mermaid is modeled after the famous drag queen Divine.

You should ask yourself- why are people performing such outrage now about such things? Is it due to a sincere concern for the well being of children, or is it a tool to rally a base and demonize their perceived enemies?

[nebo113]

Marshwiggle said I don't think it's "prejudice" to say biological males should not be put in womens' prisons, or compete in womens' sports, or be allowed in womens' shelters.
  Please operationally define "biological male", keeping in mind that some births are intersexed.

[jimbogumbo]

Here is a vivid description of what anti-woke can lead to from 2013:https://slate.com/culture/2023/06/megyn-kelly-white-santa-aisha-harris-wannabe.html

[jimbogumbo]

And, I agree with Wahoo completely that the Nazi types such as those outside Disney (and remember Skokie?) you should be allowed the freedom to express their idiocy and hatred. But, as stated eloquently in this USA Today piece it HAS to be called out as reprehensible.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2023/06/13/ron-desantis-disney-world-nazis-the-truth-about-hate/70314668007/

[Wahoo Redux]

as stated eloquently in this USA Today piece it HAS to be called out as reprehensible.

ABSOLUTELY right on!

And that is specifically what I am agitating for. 

Let them speak.

Speak back.

Freedom of speech.

[Wahoo Redux]

Keep all Catholic priests away from children?  Really?   You didn't actually just say that, did you?

Disgraced Michigan priest sentenced to jail, probation in sex abuse case

I know it is painful, but look objectively.  This sounds like Brock Turner 2.0 to me.  A single year!!!!

[marshwiggle]

Marshwiggle said I don't think it's "prejudice" to say biological males should not be put in womens' prisons, or compete in womens' sports, or be allowed in womens' shelters.
  Please operationally define "biological male", keeping in mind that some births are intersexed.

I'll let Wahoo explain that by what he calls "men-at-birth".

Trans men on women's teams?  No, a majority think men-at-birth should not compete on women's teams. 

Intersex refers to a very small and fixed portion of the population with objectively diagnosable medical conditions, so it isn't subject to fad or social contagion. (In fact it seems that many/most intersex people don't know they are in any way unusual until some sort of medical issue arises which leads to a diagnosis.) Since they represent a fixed portion of the population, they can be dealt with on a rational basis since there's no danger of them becoming a trendy thing. (And many of those medical conditions have effects like making people infertile, which they would rather not have. Being intersex is not something anyone chooses.)

[little bongo]

Marshwiggle's sophistry regarding the nature and definition of bigotry has me thinking quite a bit. On the one hand, you feel kind of bad for the guy--all those hang-ups about sexualizing children with "Heather Has Two Mommies" and fear of story-time leaders dressed in drag must be taxing things to carry on one's psyche. On the other hand, you feel like congratulating him for having no real problems in life, if he's got all this spare time to worry about such low-to no-stakes trivia.

I've been thinking about bigotry, one way or another, for a long time now. I've been very impatient with bigots, having the attitude of, "Well, dude, just stop being a bigot." But I'm starting to see that it's more complicated than that, as I examine my own myriad prejudices. What does it mean to perform outrage (bigot's version of "virtue-signaling") against those who aren't hurting anyone?

I think that 1) it's tough to be a bigot; 2) it's tough to acknowledge one's bigotry; and 3) it's tough to stop being a bigot. I'm reminded now of "Archie Bunker's Place," the spin-off to "All in the Family" that ran for several seasons in the 1980s. Now, this wasn't a great, ground-breaking show the way "All in the Family" was, nor was it even that funny most of the time. But it did tell an interesting story of a man who's lived most of his life with pronounced bigotry, and is finally starting to realize that his views offend and hurt those he loves and respects, and may even have deeper repercussions in the world he lives in. He spends most of the run of this show trying his damndest to stop being a bigot. He fails, sometimes humorously, most of the time--a lot of the humor stems from Archie saying something cringey while he's sure he's being accepting and inclusive. And while he fails, he gets called on his bigotry again--very few people appreciate that he's trying, which is quite true to life--you don't get a cookie for your attempts to correct your bigotry. It's hard, daily work, and you often have to start all over again after making a mistake. But Archie does indeed keep trying. In fact, a lot of us are not as advanced as Archie is in this particular stage of his character.

So, to all of us bigots on the thread, let's see if we can be as smart as Archie Bunker was in 1982. Let's recognize our bigotry, and let's recognize that it's worth the effort to correct it.

[Wahoo Redux]

I'll let Wahoo explain that by what he calls "men-at-birth".

Sure.

At birth we are generally a single gender and will retain our chromosomes for the rest of our lives.

Then culture will overlay our psychology with all sorts of ideas and behaviors and beliefs which is some folks cannot (or choose not to) differentiate from biology.

Upvote to little bongo.

Sometimes these folks claim that they could care less what people do in the privacyof their own bedrooms...but this is hogwash, and these same folks are actually obsessed with what other people do in private, largely because they are mistaking psychology for biology.  Oh, and because they were taught at one point that these sorts of things are wrong and they can't (or won't) rethink their beliefs.

And now that we have surgical techniques that can alter many of the cosmetic and biological aspects of gender, and some men want to dress as women, these realities are REALLY stomping on these folks hangups, like stepping on big toes with hangnails, and since the conservatives have been losing the culture wars for generations, rightwing politicians and media have amped the rhetoric up to such a degree that these folks have their knickers all in knots and part of the discourse has collapsed.  These folks naturally blame the people who live their own lives in their own ways unencumbered by all these prejudices, reenacting bigotries that have been around for generations.

[Diogenes]

We are all presumably academics, right? So we should show deference to the experts in the fields of medicine and psychology on such a topic, right? If one is not an expert and only getting their info from popular media, that would be anti-intellectual, wouldn't we say?

Here's a non-exclusive list of major professional organizations that have made statements supporting gender affirming care for minors. If you are not an expert, it's time to sit down with your ignorant opinion about "groomers" and gender or whatever.


    American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
    American Academy of Dermatology
    American Academy of Family Physicians
    American Academy of Nursing
    American Academy of Pediatrics
    American Academy of Physician Assistants
    American College Health Association
    American College of Nurse-Midwives
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
    American College of Physicians
    American Counseling Association
    American Heart Association
    American Medical Association
    American Medical Student Association
    American Nurses Association
    American Osteopathic Association
    American Psychiatric Association
    American Psychological Association
    American Public Health Association
    American Society of Plastic Surgeons
    Endocrine Society
    Federation of Pediatric Organizations
    GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ Equality
    National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health
    National Association of Social Workers
    National Commission on Correctional Health Care
    Pediatric Endocrine Society
    Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine
    World Medical Association
    World Professional Association for Transgender Health