Like Button

Tuesday, June 12, 2018

Minority Status

A poster in the building in which I work invited all employees to a seminar "to learn about the challenges faced by sexual and gender minorities." What in interesting phrase. If words are intended to convey an idea, what idea are we trying to convey in the phrase, "sexual and gender minorities"?

That should be fairly obvious. By "sexual minorities" they mean "LGBTQ+" and by "gender minorities" they mean "non-binary genders." Not hard to see. Of course, it doesn't work that easy. By inserting the word, "minority", they are inserting a category and you have to figure out what falls in that category.

The aim is the control of thought here. It isn't new. When the issue of illegal immigration came to the fore, there was outrage that one side would depict the group as "criminals". So they offered a solution. "Let's say they're undocumented." On the face of it, it's fine. The law requires particular documentation to legally immigrate. They don't have that particular documentation. Therefore, they are not legal. Same thing, right? Except that the force of the change was to remove the weight of the term. "Illegal" carries with it a moral stigma. "Undocumented" merely sounds like, "Hey, she didn't dot her i's and cross her t's; no problem." It doesn't sound like an issue. That is thought control. "If we can get you to think of them as 'undocumented' rather than 'illegal', you will view them in a different way, even if in this case the two are the same." Ease off the moral aspect and you push the thinking in a new direction.

That's the impact of "minorities" in this case. The aim is to fend off the moral question. "Minorities" is a matter of numbers while the rest of us are questioning the morality of the situation. "No, no, not moral; numerical." Like the fabled wizard of Oz, it is "Pay no attention to that moral question behind the curtain." The curtain being "minorities". So don't ask.

But here's the real question. Do they actually believe this? Do they -- those who are pushing this language (and thinking) -- actually believe that "minority" changes the problem? You see, when we use the word, "minority", we pull at your heart strings. We want you to support the underdog. We want you to be sure to love and encourage and embrace those who are "minorities" just as much as the "majority". (Do you notice that merely using those two terms in juxtaposition like that you get the feeling that "minorities" are good and "majority" is oppression?) Is that what they really believe?

Of course, it is patently obvious that they don't. Numerical status does not confer automatic support. I would think it undeniable, for instance, that the number of men that prefer rape are a minority, but no one is referring to them as a "sexual minority" whose challenges we should learn about and help with. I'm quite confident that the statistical number of people who would like to engage in incest is quite small, but I know of no one that would lump them in with the "sexual minority" category ... even though they are. (And don't get me started on "gender minority". There are two, almost 50-50 between them. How one feels about their gender is beside the point.) They explicitly deny the right of those who would marry a fence or two or more other people -- absolutely a "sexual minority". They would not (and certainly should not) urge that the sexual minority of people we term pedophiles be loved and encouraged and embraced for their sexual minority status. They don't actually believe what they're urging us to believe.

Of course, it doesn't much matter. They will also refuse to admit these facts. They aren't controlling the discussion by controlling the language. They aren't encouraging thought control by changing the way we think about it. They are not diverting attention from moral questions in order to produce a "warm fuzzy" response. They are not applying their positions capriciously. And, as in other situations, a refusal to see a problem means a refusal to address a problem or seek solutions. But, hopefully, some of you can see this.


Stan said...

To the outraged, apparently reading disabled, I did not say there are no minorities (sexual or otherwise). Indeed, I agreed wholeheartedly that there are. The question is does minority status demand support? When you argue that we need to defend, embrace, and support pedophiles and rapists because they're minorities, I'll at least admit you have a consistent position.

Craig said...

In fact, pedophiles are actively campaigning to adopt a different term for their attraction, as the first step toward normalizing their behavior. As are those who embrace polygamy.

More directly to your point, there are multiple minority groups who are and should be minorities. We have laws that enforce that.

Stan said...

I just read an account of the origin of the term, "sexual minority", which, as it turns out, specifically referenced pedophiles and sex crimes.

Craig said...

Yes, the attempt to re-Brenda pedophilia as something less creepy and disgusting is in full swing. I’m not sure which will be next to fall as a taboo, polygamy or pedophilia. In my opinion, the rebranding of pedophilia will be more successful and will therefore be the next taboo to be normalized. I think polygamy still a pens too many feminists for them to agree that it’s acceptable. After that, incest and beastiality are the only two taboos that will be left. And I suspect both of them will begin to be normalized sometime in the next 15 years.

Craig said...

Re-brand. Clearly voice recognition has its limits.

Stan said...

Oh, voice recognition. I chalked it up to auto-correct. Like "I think polygamy still a pens too many feminists ..." as opposed to "offends". I know how to translate. :)

Craig said...

Yup, technology is wonderful

Marshal Art said...

"But here's the real question. Do they actually believe this? Do they -- those who are pushing this language (and thinking) -- actually believe that "minority" changes the problem?"

The answer is clearly "yes...yes they do think it changes the problem" because to them, the problem isn't the behavior, but how it is perceived. It is wrong to say it is wrong. That's what they believe because they don't want to accept that there is a moral aspect to their behavior.

In any case, they are definitely trying to control how we think about it, rather than provide evidence that we SHOULD think of it in a different light. So long as we believe there is the moral component, though, we will continue to maintain what we know to be true, and that can't be allowed. So, they will distort to the best of their ability, and demonize those they cannot corrupt.

Stan said...

I'll agree with you, Marshal, when I start seeing mainstream Left voices crying for embracing the pedophiles and rapists as "sexual minorities". They don't believe the term; they are only using it to conveniently point to the FEW they deem "sexual minorities" by whatever random rules they employ while ignoring the rest. As a prime example, while "LGBT" includes "bisexual", I haven't seen a single effort made on their part to advance any special rights of the "bisexual". They only use it as they deem fit and NOT as it stands.

Stan said...

Dan is mad. He says I'm lying (along with a serious use of profanity that I'd have to block anyway). I have to assume that he would support classifying pedophiles and rapists as sexual minorities? I have to admit, I'm not getting it.

Craig said...

Dan has gotten quite free with the expletives recently, I’m not sure what value he perceives it as bring to the conversation.

I agree, that while to push to normalize pedophilia is growing, it hasn’t reached the mainstream of the left yet. If or when it does then it will be clear that the “sexual minorities” is accepted and wide open.

What’s baffling is that every single argument that has been made for the LGBT so far, is equally valid for the next three on the list.

If the LGBT logic is followed, then the “fact” that pedophiles are in love and that they perceive themselves as “normal” should eliminate any questions of the validity of their orientation.

I know the “harm” canard will be trotted out, but given the measurable health risks of homosexual sex, the mental health crisis among trans folk, it’s hard to say you’re against harm while advocating for harmful behaviors.

Stan said...

As far as I can tell, Craig, the only necessary considerations these days are "love" and "consent", with love actually a good option. (Think "friends with benefits".)

They don't like it when we stand on Scripture and offer moral absolutes. They position themselves as the "kinder, gentler" people with a more open view. Why it is, then, that they get to define morality for everyone else (bisexuals, pedophiles, polygamists, etc.)?

Craig said...

I made that point a while back, when an incredibly liberal person was making the argument that all the talking points were great, until you bring up pedophilia or incest. All of a sudden this person was perfectly willing to draw a hard line. I never got an answer as to why his line was right and mine was wrong.