« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


A bull takes no greater crap than when he's helping an anti-LGBT activist kill a bullying bill

by Jeremy Hooper

Laurie Higgins is working to stop an anti-bullying bill in Illinois. So to do so, she first denies that the scientifically-recognized concept of sexual orientation is a real thing, before then isolating and twisting one certain facet of the recognized sexual orientation spectrum so that it is on par with the kinds of behaviors that she knows will score fear points with her "pro-family" base:

To illustrate that “anti-bullying” programs that address homosexuality or gender confusion (aka “gender identity” or “gender expression”) are centrally about promoting “progressive” notions about homosexuality, just replace “sexual orientation” (a Leftist rhetorical creation) with another condition constituted by subjective feelings and volitional sexual acts.

Everyone knows that teenage girls who are promiscuous are often called ugly names or worse. No decent person wants promiscuous girls bullied, so why don’t anti-bullying laws and school policies include promiscuity in their lists of conditions for which students may not be bullied? Why don’t teachers show films in which promiscuity is portrayed positively? Why don’t schools invite speakers who affirm a sexually promiscuous identity to come talk to students about how bad it felt to be bullied in high school for the promiscuity? Why don’t they have “youth programming” in which promiscuity is affirmed? Why don’t teachers have students read and perform plays in which promiscuity is celebrated and disapproval of it is portrayed as ignorant, bigoted, hateful, provincialism — all in the service of ending bullying?

Or replace “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” with polyamory? What if some students are bullied because either they or their “parents” identify as polyamorists? Will schools have anti-bullying “youth programming” in which polyamorous unions are portrayed as morally equivalent to families headed by two people?
What if a student is bullied because her parents are siblings in a committed, loving incestuous relationship? Will public school administrators treat adult consensual incest exactly as they are treating homosexuality and gender confusion — all in the service of ending bullying?

The Bullying Bill Exposed [IFI]

Well, personally I don't want to see kids bullied for any reason. So yes, I would certainly hope that if "promiscuous" girls are bing bullied because of their perceived extracurriculars, or if any teen is being targeted because of his or her parents' choices in just about any regard, that the school would step in and keep those children safe. Obviously.

But what the hell does any of that deliberate obfuscation have to do with protecting students on the basis of orientation or identity?! This is not something that just protects LGBT students or their allies—protecting on the basis of identity, expression, and orientation protects *every* student, including the heterosexual and cisgender (regardless of promiscuity level and/or parental structure). Of course LGBT students are of particular note and concern, because LGBT students have a particularly demonstrable (and sad) case history of targeting, harassment, and worse. But enhanced protections don't just benefit those who've been so callously targeted throughout history—they protect anyone who might be targeted now or in the future on the basis of how he or she identifies, presents to the world, couples off, etc.

If you possess a sexual orientation and a gender identity (which is to say most everyone), then you win! Yay! Mazel Tov! The only people who lose are those who wish to deny that our natural world holds a place for certain kinds of people (which is to say Laurie).


**Please remember that the IFI is an SPLC-designated "hate group"

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails