Guest post: Like a see-saw

Originally a comment by Artymorty on There are none.

By gluing the LGB to the T, especially in the context of conversion therapy, PBS has done serious damage to gay rights.

Conversion therapy practices against same-sex attracted people don’t work: sexual orientation is fixed and inborn. Not only do such practices not work, we know that they’re also extremely harmful to patients’ mental health. Obviously, the old-school electroshock-treatment kind was barbaric. But the supposedly “milder” talk-therapy kind is also harmful — extremely so. It’s effectively psychological torture to be told by a supposed professional authority figure that there’s something wrong with you that you need to keep trying to fix, when the cards are stacked against you because in reality, it’s not in your control to change it, and that thing (sexual orientation) is not actually wrong in the first place.

In the field of secular professional therapy, this is all well-established, and the practice of trying to change someone’s sexual orientation is long gone.

But of course, with respect to “gender identity”, the exact opposite is true: in reality, it’s not in your control to change your biological sex or to radically change how others observe and detect your sex, and that thing — your sex — is not actually “wrong” in the first place.

So it very much should be the standard in secular professional therapy to steer kids away from pseudoscientific beliefs about having “wrong” bodies and mismatched “gender identities”. And we know from years of data that such therapy does, in fact, work a lot of the time, and as the therapeutic approaches improve, the rates of effectiveness do, too.

Unlike gay, you can, in fact, therapeutically “cure” trans.

People are right to both push to preserve clinicians’ rights to talk kids out of toxic “gender identities” and simultaneously push to restrict clinicians’ rights to try and talk kids out of their natural sexual orientations or gender-nonconforming expressions of personality.

Like a see-saw, when one side goes up, the other must go down. Problem is, when they get merged together, most people only see one side of the see-saw — the one they’re most preoccupied with — and the effects on the other side are out of view.

When the editors at PBS merge “gender identity” therapy with sexual orientation therapy, the readers who are (rightly) appalled at the thought of gay conversion therapy fail to see the other side of the see-saw, that rightful treatment for “gender”-confused kids is also in play.

But readers who are (also rightly) appalled by the extremism of gender ideology are so eager to see a stop to that, they fail to see the damage done to LGB people when the courts roll back prohibitions on attempted conversion against us.

I ran into this problem early on in my gay rights campaigning on this issue, and I have to confess: I, too, didn’t fully grasp the other side of the see-saw.

A few years ago when Canada’s Parliament was debating a conversion-therapy bill, I was actively involved, and I came close to testifying before the House about it. (I didn’t testify in the end, but I submitted a well-received Brief to the House, and someone who did testify addressed my brief during her testimony and urged the Members to read it.)

At that time, I was in many discussions and meetings with people about the Bill. What I had failed to grasp was that many of my supposed allies in opposing the ban on “trans conversion therapy” were also advocates for gay conversion therapy on religious freedom grounds. They and I were allies on one side of the see-saw — the one about gender identity — but I failed to immediately detect how hostile many of them were to the other side of the equation, how callous they were about the harms conversion therapy does to LGB people.

Over time, I began to see how people’s growing preoccupations with the ban on trans conversion therapy were blinding them to the dangers of re-introducing gay conversion therapy. I’d see people argue, for example, that maybe the “talk therapy” kind of gay conversion therapy isn’t really such a big concession, because it’s not like the bad old days of electroshock treatment and physical torture. That kind of Overton-window shifting, of rationalizing away the erosion of important protections that are vital to young gays and lesbians.

It’s not a coincidence that Colorado’s court case was brought forward by a Christian counselor backed by the Alliance Defending Freedom. Their end-goal is not merely to preserve therapists’ rights to treat “trans” ideation, but to criminalize homosexuality. The ADF are, as far as I’m concerned, the closest analog to the Klan or the Nazis with respect to gays and lesbians. They truly do hate us and they genuinely want homosexuality eradicated.

But it won’t surprise me if I come across a bunch of “gender critical” types celebrating the ADF’s victory, and leaving the LGB side of the see-saw largely out of sight. This may be a victory for the fight against gender ideology, but for gays and lesbians, our rights and protections in Colorado have just swung way, way down.

The blame for this predicament, as I see it, falls on PBS and other media outlets who did the dirty deed of lumping us in with the T in the first place. It was they who muddied the message. They’re the ones who tied our fates together like this.

I hate it so much.

Comments

2 responses to “Guest post: Like a see-saw”

  1. twiliter Avatar

    The most successful piece of strategy that trans advocates ever employed was attaching the T to LGB. It’s everywhere. There isn’t a reference to LGB on Wikipedia (or most anywhere) that doesn’t include TQ, including the wiki on both homosexuality and the gay rights movement of the ’70s and ’80s. LGBTQ has become ubiquitous. I don’t know if we can expect media spewers to understand the difference, even if it’s a simple distinction.

    T and Q are not sexual orientations. That’s it.

    I think the biggest challenge for the future of LGB rights will be to detach the TQ from its description, if that’s even possible now. It would benefit both group’s descriptions. But as the forced teaming is repeated and propagated it becomes less possible to disentangle the two, even while the distinction is so basic. I wonder how many media consumers hesitate in the least when they see the five letter conglomerate. Some of us still do. I’m sure the god botherers, the more conservative ones mostly, find this lumping together convenient, but it’s regressive and belittling.

  2. Artymorty Avatar

    Wikipedia’s an interesting place. It’s been the de facto knowledge base of the Internet — and by extension, of civilization — for over two decades, and that standing, coupled with the fact that it’s open-source, has made it a tantalizing target for zealous activists bent on controlling the narrative around their pet causes.

    Once, the most zealous activists and free-speech opponents on the Internet were the Scientologists, who famously organized a massive Wikipedia editing campaign in an effort to legitimize their beliefs and suppress their critics. This led to widespread media coverage and and unprecedented Wikipedia editing ban on all known Scientology-related IP addresses.

    Nowadays, the most zealous activists and free-speech opponents on the Internet are the trans activists. Like Scientology, the movement generates armies of fully-committed, rabidly militant, obsessed zombies who crawl the Internet nonstop, hounding anyone who’d acknowledge biological sex or say anything that might threaten the precarious edifice of beliefs they’ve attached themselves to.

    Wikipedia is absolutely lousy with keyboard warriors (often with crude, kinky names like “anime_ladydick69”) who stake out pages that cover biological sex, sexual orientation, or any gender-critical public figure. They instantaneously remove any unfavourable edits to those pages. It’s a full-on information warfare campaign, and the trans activists relish playing their part suppressing the truth.

    But the trans activists have seen much more success than the Scientologists, because unlike the Scientologists, who went for the religious-freedom, “we’re-just-like-Christians-leave-us-alone” angle, the trans activists aligned themselves with social justice and “we’re just like gay people leave us alone”. This strategy gave them just enough shielding from scrutiny among guilt-laden bleeding-heart types that they were able set their roots into the liberal cultural ecosystem.

    Ultimately, it’s the job of the media to report on this massive, organized, decentralized information-warfare movement. The editors at liberal news organizations are supposed to be the ones exposing this massive attempt to suppress free speech by an extremist cult. But instead, they’ve ended up complicit in it: day after day, editor after editor green-lights more and more unhinged pieces written by gender cultists (see that Slate piece about the OIympics from the other day), and virtually all article submissions that tell the truth get blocked.

    I can’t stress it enough: it’s the media editors who are to blame for this mess, above everyone else. Because it’s their job above everyone else’s to protect the truth. That’s the point of the fourth estate.

    But there’s a new Sheriff in town: AI.

    ChatGPT has already usurped Wikipedia’s role as the first place one looks for information about anything. It’s too early to tell how this is going to go. Maybe it’s already too late: maybe enough trans garbage has been fed into the AI database that only genderwoo garbage will come out of it. Or maybe not: maybe it’ll become capable enough to fact-check the gender ideological lies and push back against them. My sense is that ChatGPT is much less hostile to the gender-critical position than it was two years ago, and I suspect that’s at least a little bit to do with the logic simply adding up on our side of the argument better than the other side’s.

    We’ll see how this plays out…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *