Tuesday, February 5, 2019

Brian S. Brown could run out of bad reasons to donate to NOM

Anti-trans rhetoric is just re-purposed anti-gay bombast.
Brian S. Brown offers absurd arguments to deflect the fact that his real antipathy for LGBT people stems from his religious choices.
Image via C-SPAN
The format for appeals for money from Brian S. Brown of National Organization for Marriage requires taking credit for a dubious accomplishment that NOM had nothing to do with. Then, if you send money to NOM, they will do more  of the same that they did not do in the first place. It reminds me of clapping hands to keep Tinkerbell alive. The only thing that the anti-LGBT group seems to do is to ask for money.

Tuesday's communique from Brown is a bit different while managing to be offensive: Prominent Lesbian and Gay Leaders Reject Transgender Ideology. Brown's middle initial should be “B” for bullshit because none of the people he is referring to are “prominent.” Nor are they “lesbian and gay leaders.” Obviously, being transgender is not an “ideology.” Fanatical, irrational, fundamentalist Catholicism? Now, that's an ideology.

Rinse and Repeat the Prominent leader BS:
The push behind transgender ideology took some major hits this past week when several prominent feminist, lesbian and gay leaders went public with strong criticism of the ideology underlying the transgender movement that has gripped modern culture. They also sharply criticized the so-called Equality Act, the top legislative priority of LGBT extremists, for being based on a false premise and proposing to codify this false ideology into federal law.
Adding to the prevarication is the idea that the Equality Act is a legislative priority. It is not. Also, I do not understand how any LGBT person with a reasonably functional cerebral cortex could oppose the measure. If re-introduced (right now it is dead), the measure would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It scares the hell out of people like Brian S. Brown whose choice of religion is included in the 1964 law.
They did honor Ryan T. Anderson five years ago:
Is that enough to send NOM some dough?
The week began with a panel presentation at The Heritage Foundation led by our friend, Ryan Anderson, Ph.D. (At our NOM Gala in 2014, we honored Anderson with our Public Square Leadership Award.) The panel featured presentations from self-proclaimed "radical feminists" including two who are lesbians. The panelists rejected the entire basis of trans ideology – that sex is a meaningless social construct and what is important is 'gender identity.' Panelist Julia Beck noted that within the “LGBT” acronym, the LGB segments – lesbians, gays, and bisexuals – base their whole notion of “sexual orientation” upon the fact that sex is innate and not built upon mere stereotypes, the way “gender” is. While it is clear that we do not agree with many of the viewpoints of these panelists, it is remarkable that even within the so-called LGBT community a division has occurred over the radical gender ideology being promoted by a minority group within a minority movement!
At least three of the four panelists are with Women's Liberation Front (“WoLF”) which is not a legitimate group and has been partially financed by the hate group Alliance Defending Freedom. Mr. Brown is also redefining reality. No one believes “that sex is a meaningless social construct.” No one! Brown cannot construct a single paragraph free of lies. I have no idea who — or what — Julia Beck is but Brown's recitation is just nonsensical gibberish. For his part, Ryan T. Anderson knows nothing about human sexuality. Like Brown, Anderson is just a defender of the faith with zero credibility outside of the Christian bubble.
The inevitable:
Brown never explains how NOM would spend the money that he is trying to raise.
Sullivan:
Prominent gay activist Andrew Sullivan, in a long piece written for New York Magazine, concurred with the views of the panelists. Sullivan says The Equality Act, the top legislative priority of the grossly misnamed Human Rights Campaign, "could put all single-sex institutions, events, or groups in legal jeopardy. [...] The bill, in other words, 'undermines the fundamental legal groundwork for recognizing and combating sex-based oppression and sex discrimination against women and girls."
Sullivan is an activist for only one thing — Sullivan. Brown failed to provide a link but this is Sullivan's opening paragraph (which explains the absence of a link).
It might be a sign of the end-times, or simply a function of our currently scrambled politics, but earlier this week, four feminist activists — three from a self-described radical feminist organization Women’s Liberation Front — appeared on a panel at the Heritage Foundation. Together they argued that sex was fundamentally biological, and not socially constructed, and that there is a difference between women and trans women that needs to be respected. For this, they were given a rousing round of applause by the Trump supporters, religious-right members, natural law theorists, and conservative intellectuals who comprised much of the crowd. If you think I’ve just discovered an extremely potent strain of weed and am hallucinating, check out the video of the event.
Forgive me but I am not fan of Sullivan who also provides this sophistry:
[The Equality Act] includes and rests upon a critical redefinition of what is known as “sex.” We usually think of this as simply male or female, on biological grounds (as opposed to a more cultural notion of gender). But the Equality Act would define “sex” as including “gender identity,” and defines “gender identity” thus: “gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or characteristics, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.”
That is false. Sex would remain as a separate protected class which pertains to about 99.5% of the population. Gender would be an additional protected class. It would apply only to the 0.3% to 0.5% of the population that is transgender plus, perhaps, some gender nonconforming folks. It's really not terribly complicated. But I digress because there is more Brown matter:

The testimony of so many prominent LGBT leaders in opposition to transgender ideology and The Equality Act represents a potential fissure in the LGBT community and provides important insight in our efforts to reject this ideology and prevent its imposition though The Equality Act and other legal mechanisms. Help us move aggressively forward to educate the public about the facts of this issue by making your 2019 Membership contribution to NOM today.
There aren't “so many,” with the exception of Sullivan they are not prominent and none (including Sullivan) are leaders. What Brown is really saying is that, with donations, NOM will send out religion-based emails attempting to marginalize a minuscule percentage of the population because the Vatican does not approve of transgender people because of an ancient passage in Genesis. If that makes a whit of sense you are probably smoking the weed that Sullivan refers to:

One more paragraph (there is still much more):
It has been our position for quite some time that gender dysphoria is a serious medical matter and that those suffering from it deserve treatment and our sincere concerns. When someone is confused about their true sex, mistakenly believing they are trapped in the wrong body, very serious problems can result for them. But codifying this confusion by masking it in a redefinition of sex, replacing sex – something that is biologically based and readily evident – with "gender identity" – an amorphous concept based not on biology but on emotions, feelings and stereotypes – does a grave disservice to everyone.
National Organization for Marriage is a hate group. What Brian S. Brown is saying is that while gender dysphoria is a serious matter it should be treated, not according to medical science, but in accordance with religious dogma. Brown's religious choices prohibit him from understanding gender as a separate construct from natal sex. He wants parents to actively prevent their dysphoric children from affirming their gender.

That means Brown is willing to put the very lives of children at risk because of ancient texts and pronouncements from the Vatican. I would add that those pronouncements come from theologians and catechists rather than medical professionals.

They are at odds with the entire medical establishment with the exception of the tiny hate group, American College of Pediatricians and the Catholic Medical Association. Brian S. Brown is an uncritical repeater, promoter and enabler of ignorance and prejudice.

Related content:



No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.