There are none

Comments

8 responses to “There are none”

1. 

   Your Name’s not Bruce?

   Apr 6, 2026 11:00 AM

   Being able to talk sensibly about this subject would be a lot easier if the news media would stop framing it so dishonestly.

   The fact that that framing is carefully and deliberately dishonest says nothing good aboiut the media, and does nothing good for the media’s reputation and standing. It’s like giving the right wing a free square on their “Fake News BINGO” card. Genderism is not worth the price they’re paying (and that we’re all paying, through the inevitable erosion of trust that comes with the media promoting and defending outright lies.) And to what end? For what purpose?
2. 

   Your Name’s not Bruce?

   Apr 6, 2026 11:22 AM

   Rachel Maddow assures us that her wife wears skirts, never trousers. But…you know…the gap between that and actually being F or M because skirts or trousers is enormous.

   Maddow can not not know that supporting forced teaming like this can only damage her rights as a female, and as a lesbian, though she probably thinks she’s not going to pay this price personally, even though she already has. Trust and integrity are not so easily regained once they’ve been squandered on obvious bullshit. Blowback doesn’t really care who or what you are, and as others have noted, if you’ll forgive the terminology, karma’s a bitch. So what’s in it for her? Is this ideological purity (and incoherence) so priceless that she’s willing to sign a blank cheque over to genderism with no thought as to how many zeros they’ll put to the left of the decimal? The lies are really not that shiny. At least not to those of us on the outside seeing their true cost.
3. 

   What a Maroon

   Apr 6, 2026 11:50 AM

   If Trump rocks up to the camera, takes his ugly blue trousers off, and puts on an ugly blue skirt, he doesn’t then become a woman.

   You owe me some brain bleach to get rid of that image.
4. 

   Artymorty

   Apr 6, 2026 12:15 PM

   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.
5. 

   iknklast

   Apr 6, 2026 12:32 PM

   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.

   Yes, this is what troubled me the other day when I heard about the decision. The T has forced everyone into accepting them as a legitimate part of the LGB (and stuck the Q+++++++ in there for balance and good measure). One, a biologically sound reality, is now larded down with a Tinkerbell fantasy that is actually overshadowing it and masking the dangers to the real one.

   My husband had sort of missed the LGB part of it, as you say, and was celebrating the T part, but we did have a good conversation around it. He doesn’t follow the issue as closely as I do, and doesn’t always see the nuances because he instinctively sees T as a separate issue. Most people seem to rattle off the initials without thinking about them, and what they mean, or the impacts on actual people’s lives of teaming LGB with T (and anyone else who wants to jump on board).

   I’m afraid a lot of them also miss the impacts on actual people’s lives of teaming T with anti-racism and with feminism, too.

   Funny how many of the TiMs function in a very oblivious, male entitlement manner, no?
6. 

   Alison

   Apr 6, 2026 12:59 PM

   Trump putting on an ugly blue skirt would make him the first woman president by the soi-disant progressives’ own rules. It would almost be funny if it weren’t so awful.
7. 

   maddog1129

   Apr 6, 2026 1:11 PM

   T is conversion therapy weaponized against L and G.
8. 

   Bjarte Foshaug

   Apr 6, 2026 1:19 PM

   If Trump rocks up to the camera, takes his ugly blue trousers off, and puts on an ugly blue skirt, he doesn’t then become a woman.

   A pink skirt still does the trick, right?

   (If the skirt is blue, the pronoun badge has to be 50 % larger, and the angle of the head tilt has to be 10° greater.)