mfioretti: lgbt*

Bookmarks on this page are managed by an admin user.

49 bookmark(s) - Sort by: Date ↓ / Title / Voting / - Bookmarks from other users for this tag

  1. The untenable technophobia of the Left pushes us backwards in time. It leads not only to greater puritanism and an infuriating ideology of victimhood, but also to a pervasive abuse of the figure of “hate crime” to oppress and to censor on all sides. This is sweeping away freedoms of the press, satire, information and speech and even sexual freedoms.

    Do we want to fight hatred? Do we want to protect those threatened systematically because of their experience of discrimination? Very much, but not like this.

    Threats, insults and harassment, both in public and in private, are all crimes punishable by law. A clumsy or malicious legal interpretation of EU legislation on so-called “hate speech crimes” can kill freedom.

    Given the abuse by the wealthy of crimes against personal honour – systematically employed to stop more serious crimes from being dragged out in the open – the Left should have expected to find nothing good coming via this route. But it didn’t get the message.

    Because the real trap, this twisted conception of “hate speech”, was not invented by evil ministers; they have only taken advantage of it in many States like that of Spain, which has a severe democratic deficit in its value system.

    “Hate speech” is a treacherous phrase: fighting against “hate speech” – where “hate” is a subordinate adjective to “speech” – means nothing other than fighting against “speech” in the first place, thereby contributing to the shrinking frame of freedom of speech, instead of fighting for an end to discrimination.

    Defending freedom of speech is not only a pretty and very leftist thing to do, it is also important so that we can distinguish between what a democracy really is and what it is not. Pursuing free speech as a political and legal praxis is a characteristic of dictatorships: and this willing adherence of the Left can only send us in the opposite direction from any solutions.

    Pursuing free speech as a political and legal praxis is a characteristic of dictatorships: and this willing adherence of the Left can only send us in the opposite direction from any solutions. Responding to prosecutions with an eye for an eye logic, responding to hate speech accusations with hate speech accusations, legitimates the narrative which destroys our freedom and reinforces polarization and hatred.
    Legal autarchy

    Spain is slowly becoming (once again) a legal autarchy, with the Minister of Interior widening the definition of hate crime as he likes in order to push the narrative which is destroying our freedoms. Meanwhile, however, the Left calls for limits to freedom of speech without any legal safeguards with its proposal of a law for LTGBI protection.

    I disagree. It is by consolidating freedom of speech that those who are a minority in the ruling narrative will get to express themselves and break free of their constraints on their own. On their own, never in a supervised and victimising way thanks to the loudest voice like that of a Left that always aims to “represent” everyone, even when nobody asked them to.
    Voting 0
  2. interests are assumed to be determined by their membership in groups, particularly their sex, race, sexual orientation, and disability status. Its signature is the tic of preceding a statement with “As a,” as if that bore on the cogency of what was to follow. Identity politics originated with the fact that members of certain groups really were disadvantaged by their group membership, which forged them into a coalition with common interests: Jews really did have a reason to form the Anti-Defamation League.

    But when it spreads beyond the target of combatting discrimination and oppression, it is an enemy of reason and Enlightenment values, including, ironically, the pursuit of justice for oppressed groups. For one thing, reason depends on there being an objective reality and universal standards of logic. As Chekhov said, there is no national multiplication table, and there is no racial or LGBT one either.

    This isn’t just a matter of keeping our science and politics in touch with reality; it gives force to the very movements for moral improvement that originally inspired identity politics. The slave trade and the Holocaust are not group-bonding myths; they objectively happened, and their evil is something that all people, regardless of their race, gender, or sexual orientation, must acknowledge and work to prevent in the future.

    Even the aspect of identity politics with a grain of justification—that a man cannot truly experience what it is like to be a woman, or a white person an African American—can subvert the cause of equality and harmony if it is taken too far, because it undermines one of the greatest epiphanies of the Enlightenment: that people are equipped with a capacity for sympathetic imagination, which allows them to appreciate the suffering of sentient beings unlike them. In this regard nothing could be more asinine than outrage against “cultural appropriation”—as if it’s a bad thing, rather than a good thing, for a white writer to try to convey the experiences of a black person, or vice versa.

    To be sure, empathy is not enough. But another Enlightenment principle is that people can appreciate principles of universal rights that can bridge even the gaps that empathy cannot span. Any hopes for human improvement are better served by encouraging a recognition of universal human interests than by pitting group against group in zero-sum competition.

    How high are the stakes in universities? Should we worry?

    SP: Yes, for three reasons. One is that scholars can’t hope to understand the world (particularly the social world) if some hypotheses are given a free pass and others are unmentionable. As John Stuart Mill noted, “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.” In The Blank Slate I argued that leftist politics had distorted the study of human nature, including sex, violence, gender, childrearing, personality, and intelligence. The second is that people who suddenly discover forbidden facts outside the crucible of reasoned debate (which is what universities should be) can take them to dangerous conclusions, such as that differences between the sexes imply that we should discriminate against women (this kind of fallacy has fueled the alt-right movement). The third problem is that illiberal antics of the hard left are discrediting the rest of academia, including the large swaths of moderates and open-minded scholars who keep their politics out of their research.!
    Voting 0
    Tags: , , by M. Fioretti (2018-02-06)
    Voting 0
  4. from the comments:

    I haven't even read the article yet because the headline hit so close to home for me. This is exactly what led to my conversion. A staunch democrat and obama voter through his first term. Then got sick and tired of being called a racist just for being white, a sexist for being a man, a homophobe for being a Christian, and straw that broke the camels back was being called a transphobic for believing in boys and girls.

    CORRECTION: You're a homophobe for being heterosexual; being Christian makes you "anti-science." You're welcome. :)

    This is why there is no such thing as "white male privilege" no matter how loudly the Left wishes to shriek it. When you are a punching bag for bigotry and prejudice, passed over for education and employment, based on the color of your skin alone, then you aren't enjoying any sort of privilege. When you are automatically presumed to be a violent sexual predator simply because you have a penis you're not planning on rejecting, you are not enjoying any sort of privilege.
    Voting 0
  5. Diversity is all the rage on college campuses. And for good reason. It is important for the diversity of our nation to be reflected in higher education and beyond. However, the people who champion gender, racial, and cultural diversity often shun viewpoint diversity. Universities have become increasingly ideologically homogeneous. This is especially the case in the social sciences; fewer than 10 percent of professors in these fields identify as conservative, and this number keeps shrinking. Conservatives have little influence in the scholarly disciplines that have the most to say about social and cultural life, family, and mental health.

    The study of prejudice in social psychology (my field) illustrates why this lack of viewpoint diversity is problematic. Considering how harmful prejudice can be, most people would agree that it is a worthy topic of research. The problem isn’t the topic. The problem is how the personal ideologies of social psychologists can influence how the topic is studied. For example, social psychologists have long been interested in a possible link between political ideology and prejudice. To study prejudice one has to pick a target group. And guess what? Liberal social psychologists tend to pick target groups that are generally viewed as political allies (e.g., gay men and lesbians, atheists). The research then reveals that conservatives, compared to liberals, are less tolerant of members of these groups. And the liberal social psychologists proclaim that the finding supports the broader notion that conservatives are more prejudiced, less tolerant than liberals.

    Social psychologists have now produced a rather large literature promoting this idea. However, when researchers have bothered to examine attitudes about target groups that tend to be conservative (e.g., evangelical Christians, members of the military), the opposite pattern is observed. It is liberals, not conservatives, who display intolerance. But there are far fewer studies that focus on such target groups, probably because there are very few conservative social psychologists.

    This issue does not disappear when scholars focus on cognitive and personality traits instead of political beliefs because these traits are often correlates of conservatism/liberalism. This research tells a familiar story. Liberals have the characteristics associated with thoughtfulness, fairness, and empathy for others. Conservatives do not. But again, many of these studies were incomplete. And recent research has helped reveal this fact.

    When fields like social psychology are almost entirely composed of researchers who are ideologically similar, it is easy to create a social science that rarely looks inward.
    Voting 0
  6. If gender scholars, for example, really believe that science is contaminated by a system of patriarchal and colonialist oppression then they should demand more rigor in science, not less. They should fight for increased efforts to remove human bias through more careful research design, instrument development, and data-collection procedures. They should be big fans of predictive research, hypothesis testing, inferential statistics, and replication attempts from independent labs. They should champion all efforts to suppress the extent to which humans can contaminate science with their personal biases and motives.
    Voting 0
  7. Proprio come, sul côté economico, il liberismo aspira ad abbattere il limite politico statale, così, sul versante sessuale, mira a dissolvere il concetto stesso di limite naturale, dissolvendo l’idea di una natura non risolta integralmente nella società e nella storia. Il mito neoliberistico del transnazionale si ridispone, nell’ambito della sessualità, nell’elogio mediatico permanente della figura del transgender, ossia di colui che ha varcato ogni confine, ogni limite e ogni frontiera naturale, ogni residuo della tradizione storica.

    Come il transnazionalismo liberista mira al mercato globale deregolamentato e libero da ogni sovranità nazionale democratica, così il transgenderismo eretto a modello mediatico si fonda sulla deregulation sessuale, sull’abbattimento di ogni limite e di ogni sovranità legati all’ambito della natura e della biologia. Nel quadro del fiorire delle nuove categorie promosse dai gender studies, ove il transgender si pone come variante sessuale del migrante e il queer del precario, la vetusta eterosessualità viene rubricata a categoria tra le tante, nella completa rimozione tanto della sua rilevanza nell’orizzonte dell’eticità borghese e proletaria, quanto della sua centralità ontologica per la riproduzione della razza umana: l’eterosessuale è ridefinito come cisgender.

    Secondo la più diretta offensiva rivolta contro l’eticità familiare borghese e proletaria, i gender studies collocano l’eterosessualità su un piano di indistinzione, nel trionfo della separazione tra sessualità e vita etica familiare.

    Quello animante l’ideologia gender come teoria sessuale corrispondente alla precarizzazione delle identità coincide, dunque, con il sogno di De Sade, espresso nelle pagine della Nouvelle Justine (1797): “L’impossibilité d’outrager la nature est, selon moi, le plus grand supplice de l’homme”. In tale sogno si riflette il nichilismo della forma merce, con la sua segreta teleologia della violazione di tutto ciò che può essere violato e dell’oltrepassamento di ogni misura.

    Il corollario che ne discende, e che struttura la visione del mondo propria dell’ideologia genderista, è quello per cui, anche sul versante sessuale, tutto è illimitatamente possibile e, dunque, illimitatamente consumabile. Sta qui il segreto della dinamica di androgenizzazione della società a capitalismo flessibile: l’individuo unisex tende a una androginia completa, in quanto non deve essere né uomo, né donna, per poter essere contemporaneamente entrambe. Deve, cioè, trascendere ogni limite e poter essere tutto senza inibizioni naturali o morali, biologiche o culturali.
    Voting 0
  8. Is this the end of same-sex marriage?
    Many same-sex couples worry that their marriages could be invalidated in Trump's America, or that if things are getting serious they better hurry up and make it official before their right to tie the knot disappears.
    Neither the President nor Congress can take away what the Supreme Court has deemed a "fundamental right," leaving current marriages safe, multiple legal experts said.
    While Trump does not have the right to unilaterally scrap marriage equality, he has the power to appoint Supreme Court justices who could.
    So far, judicial conservatives are said to be very pleased with his potential nominees. But it would take a long time for the court to repeal marriage equality -- if they decide to, Tiven said. Regardless of who replaces Justice Antonin Scalia, the five Supreme Court justices who ushered in marriage equality will remain. The jurists that replace them could be the ones that bring change.
    By then, though, advocates are optimistic that society will have adjusted to the idea and let it be.
    "People's hearts and minds have changed," HRC legal director Sarah Warbelow said. "We've had rights rolled back but it is rare."
    What about same-sex adoption?
    Gay and lesbian parents are worried that their parental rights could be in jeopardy, especially for the non-biological parent.
    Even if that person's name is on the child's birth certificate, experts say it's best to adopt the child.
    Also called a second parent adoption, it's a court order that says as a legal matter the adult is a parent, said Jennifer C. Pizer, senior counsel and law and policy director of Lambda Legal.
    Though the states set adoption and parental rights policies, adoption ensures both parents have a legal tie, which could help in challenges to parental rights at the federal level.
    "Court judgments are recognized from state to state as a constitutional rule so even if federal law changes you're a parent of the child," she said.
    Voting 0
  9. One naturally wonders, however, why such wild hopes were never placed in Pope Benedict XVI, who as Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the following in his letter to bishops “On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons”:

    It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

    And in the very next paragraph, Ratzinger added:

    But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground such as gender ideology » .

    That Pope Francis can say both, just as Ratzinger said both, is a mark of coherence and consistency with his predecessor in the Chair of Peter. Where the illusion of imminent departure comes from, in the specific case of Pope Francis, I confess I have no idea.

    And likewise, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says of homosexual persons, “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” And that wery same paragraph (2358) also describes same-sex attraction as “objectively disordered.”

    But for some reason, every time Pope Francis says the one, the secular media and certain advocacy groups get all hot and bothered that he is about to deny the other. As the Times reports:

    Sarah McBride, a spokeswoman for the Human Rights Campaign, said the words sent a ripple of hope through the LGBT community that the Vatican might be embracing a broader stance on inclusion.

    She added, however, “I think what’s clear in this last statement is that maybe those sentiments weren’t universally applied—that for transgender people, the pontiff is applying a different standard.”

    Well, no, Ms. McBride, there is no “different standard” for homosexual people than for transgender people. The very same principle applies to both: Treat them with dignity and respect, and love them. Say you are sorry when you are cruel or dismissive of them. But none of that implies acceptance of everything they think or everything they do. That’s a separate matter.

    But “LGBT leaders,” according to the Times, “said Wednesday that the pope had failed to grasp that one’s gender identity is discovered, often at a very young age, not chosen.”

    In fact, it’s not so much that the pope does not “grasp” this—if by “grasp” it you mean understand the argument—it’s that the pope does not agree with it. It is a contentious argument, not one that has been in any way proven. But one would think that, by denying this, the pope is denying heliocentrism, or the sun’s morning appearance in the east.

    “There have been times,” Ms. McBride concluded, “where the pope has » demonstrated compassion. Then there have been other times where his words have been not only hurtful, and frankly harmful, but really demonstrating a misunderstanding of what it means to be transgender.”

    A larger problem here is not the pope’s understanding “of what it means to be transgender” (or lack thereof), but Ms. McBride’s understanding of what it means to have compassion. That compassion, for her, seems to mean both “don’t kill people,” “be kind to people,” and “accept every false and wreckless and destructive idea and lifestyle that occurs to them” helps to explain why Pope Francis is the cause of repeated dashed hopes on the left.

    People like Ms. McBride work themselves up into a pitch of nervous excitement, and then wail in a jilted rage when reality sets in. Only to do it all over again next month.

    This is Pope Francis Derangement Syndrome of the left.
    Voting 0
  10. here’s the really maddening thing: At the same time that Leftists on college campuses are forcing professors to water down their lessons lest the truth be a “trauma trigger,” they’re blasting a law that exists to protect people from actual trauma triggers. Not fake trauma triggers, like the question “Where are you from?” Real ones, like male genitalia in a girl’s locker room. RELATED: With It’s Bathroom Ordinance, Houston Takes Leave of It’s Municipal Senses The purpose of HB2 is to ensure that people, especially women and children but men as well, can use public restrooms, locker rooms, and changing areas without being exposed to people of the opposite biological sex. It’s pretty common sense. But common sense has not always been a good defense against the rage of the Left. Here’s a lineup of the most oft-told lies about HB2 and its supporters. ‘It’s anti-LGBT’ The law goes out of its way to point out that, even though it requires men to use the men’s room and women to use the women’s room, single-occupancy restrooms can be used by people regardless of their biological gender or of the gender they identify with. Schools and places of business have the option to make those single-occupancy areas available to individuals who aren’t comfortable in public private spaces assigned to their specific biological gender.
    Voting 0

Top of the page

First / Previous / Next / Last / Page 1 of 5 Online Bookmarks of M. Fioretti: Tags: lgbt

About - Propulsed by SemanticScuttle