Affirming the Alphabet Soup

Now I know my “ABCs”

Next time won’t you sing with me?

--------------------------------

The letters LGBTQ+ loom large in the cultural and political imagination of our day.

Strange New World: How Thinkers and Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked the Sexual Revolution, by Carl R. Trueman

Sixty years ago, homosexuality was still illegal in many Western countries.  Ten years ago, Barack Obama would not unequivocally support gay marriage.  Yet today, it is illegal to talk to someone about the possibility that they may not actually be a man trapped in a woman’s body, or counsel a minor away from adding or subtracting body parts.

Trueman’s story until now is the story of how we came to this point.  So, what of today?

The first thing to note about the LGBTQ+ is that its different constituent members are actually divided over the very thing upon which an outsider might assume they are agreed: the nature and status of sex.

Even in the early years, lesbian women and gay men weren’t well aligned – one of the two enjoying male privilege, after all; the lesbian woman still having to act the woman part in a workplace context, for example.  The AIDS event helped to change this.  Now gay men, like lesbian women, were also discriminated against, in a manner of speaking.  There came a shared sense of victimhood.

However, they each retained the notion that there was no difference between sex and gender.  And they each were opposed to the idea of a heteronormative society.  The first would eventually crumble; the second opened the door for the rest of the alphabet soup.

Sex is biologically determined; gender, however, is a role taken on by an actor.  Simone de Beauvoir would write, “One is not born, but rather becomes, woman.”  Judith Butler offered that gender is a performance, a set of behaviors demanded by society from those with certain biological characteristics.

Adding the T is rather incoherent as the L, G, and B all assume the sex binary to be grounded in biology.  They just happen to have attractions that don’t conform to the traditional.  The Q, of course, extends this further – offering a home for those whose subjective desires are ever-changing and fluid.

Trueman offers the testimony of a lesbian whose partner decided to transition.  A bit confusing, no?  not to worry.  After a time of confusion, the lesbian decided she could love the new as she did the old.

But the confusion could never go away, could it?  After all, she still feels herself a lesbian.  But at the same time, she affirms her partner’s maleness.  Does she now deny her place in the alphabet soup?  Andrew Sullivan, a gay man, is not so charitable, or confused, when he wrote in 2019:

“It is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man.  It is close to definitional.”

There is the story of the campground for gay men; biological females are not welcome, whatever their alphabetical persuasion.  Boy, the campground owner got an earful for this view. 

Then there is the well-known conflict between with trans women and what we used to call just … women.  Trans-exclusionary radical feminists, or TERFs.  Feminists who have the nerve to complain that trans women are just men trying to exert their male privilege by taking advantage of the gains made in the fight for women’s rights. 

Irrelevant.  There can be no connection between biology and the definition of what it means to be a man or a woman.  J.K. Rowling learned this lesson when she suggested that there must be a word for people who menstruate.  Male or female, man or woman – it isn’t a biological issue, it is an issue of psychology.  But instead of seeing a shrink … well, you know.

Germaine Greer addressed this “you know” part, offering: “I’ve asked my doctor to give me long ears and liver spots and I’m going to wear a brown coat but that won’t turn me into a f*****g cocker spaniel.”  Not yet, Germaine.  But just give it a few days.  It may be in the “+” somewhere. 

Trueman then introduces something called The Yogyakarta Principles, named after the city in Indonesia where these were formulated in 2006.  Neither of the groups that formulated these principles has official government status, but numerous governments around the world have adopted the principles.

The opening paragraph sets the stage:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.  All human rights are universal, interdependent, indivisible, and interrelated.  Sexual orientation and gender identity are integral to every person’s dignity and humanity and must not be the basis for discrimination or abuse.

The idea of sexual orientation as it is described in the preamble is content free – based on nothing but subjective desire; gender is separated from biological sex; sex is “assigned” at birth, but has nothing to do with gender. 

Further, the Principles call for societies to affirm, support, and protect whatever subjective identity anyone takes on at any time.  In other words, plastic laws for plastic people.  So far, this hasn’t extended to the pedophile, but what, exactly, is to be uncovered in the “+”?

Further, everyone has the right to found a family.  The idea that sperm, and egg, and a womb are necessary to secure this right is irrelevant. 

While the L and the G and the B were reasonably irrelevant to how the rest of society lived their daily lives (with the exception of the baker or florist on occasion), the T is increasingly imposing itself on all of society.  No privacy in locker rooms or bathrooms; athletic and sport competitions thrown into a frenzy.  Notions of privacy and safety are thrown out the window. 

Conclusion

One can see in all of this the battles to come – not just between … let’s just call them … “traditionalists” and “alphabets” – but within and amongst those in the alphabet chain itself. 

The L, the G, and the B now look remarkably passé, assuming as they do the importance of biological sex for the gender binary.  The T and the Q, denying this, have proved both parasitic upon the gains made by the LGB and ultimately destructive of the LGB, as well as of traditional feminism.

They are consuming and will further consume themselves.  Of this there is no doubt.  As Doug Wilson has said, "stupidity is not a long-range strategy."

But the ride will be very rough for the rest of us in the meantime.