The true targets in the latest pro-trans offensive are the children. President Obama’s strong suggestion to schools that they make special accommodations for trans students as well as moves by a variety of localities and activist groups specifically seek both to inculcate trans acceptance in the most intellectually vulnerable among us and to undermine parental authority. a both necessary and sufficient condition, in the long run, is to convince children that trans people are perfectly normal. Young people are already more accepting of gender and sexual deviance than their elders—if children are told by their teachers that there are fifty-seven or more different genders, they will believe it, accept it, and consider it perfectly normal. And when these children grow up, they will teach their kids the same thing, and so on...Read the rest there.
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
The Mechanics Of Social Change
Ever since the Target "bathroom" announcement came out after the North Carolina legislation I have repeatedly said that the bathroom is not the target. The goal here is acceptance of gender dysphoria as normal. Once you accept transgender as "normal" then all the other dominoes fall because you don't deny access to "normal" people. How is it that this is coming about? You target the most impressionable populations: Children and young people. Children are impressionable and simply don't know enough to object to what they are being taught. Nor are they allowed the agency to remove themselves from places and teachers who teach them. They are captive audiences. The state having encouraged women out of the home, and therefore being highly involved in the socialization of their children, is the perfect mechanism to encode the new social order into a population. The earlier you get them out from under their parents (FREE PRE-K!) the better you control the mind. Young people, as in those in college, are the next group. They've been softened up by their earlier years. Now they are feeling themselves and are given wide berth to act out on their "radical" impulses because they are not, generally speaking, footing the bill. They have no real responsibilities and therefore do not have to actually live with the consequences of their ideologies. I'm not the only one who sees this. David Grant at Social Matter does as well: