To love and to cherish

More on this one, because it’s like a burr in my brain.

What is that?

The ACLU doesn’t talk like that about any other oppressed group. Nobody talks like that about any other oppressed group. It’s weird, it’s out of place, it’s infantilizing, it’s excessive, it’s slushy, it makes no kind of sense. Where did this come from? How did we get here?

Normally conversations among adults about justice and human rights talk about…justice and human rights. They don’t talk about loving and cherishing. It’s a massive category mistake to do so. Justice and rights have to be independent of “love” and “cherishing” because they’re abstract and general, not emotional and personal.

In fact this kind of glurge sounds more like evangelical Christianity than it does a secular civil liberties organization.

And on top of the mismatch with a properly adult civil liberties org, there’s the fact that it’s repulsive. Ick. Who wants the world at large to “love” and “cherish” us? That would be creepy. Loving and cherishing is for people who know each other, not for the 7 billion people on the planet.

Why are they doing this? I suppose one guess is that the “activism” has relied all along on hysteria about transphobia, and that nudges people who don’t think very well into condescending sentimental drool about loving and cherishing. You’d think trans people themselves would object to the condescension, wouldn’t you? But no, maybe you wouldn’t, since the whole thing is deeply narcissistic, so the more offers of universal cherishing the better.

18 Responses to “To love and to cherish”