Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

FYI-FTR: The transgender school bathroom issue as a cultural marxist divide, polarise and ruin wedge

arroba Email

tapered divideAs debate has proceeded on the watershed, wedge-apart issue, real-time events have intruded to show who has read the dynamics accurately.

Never mind the dismissive, denigratory accusations: bigot, hater, coward, apocalyptic, and worse  . . .

So, it is time to promote yet another comment in the still-in progress thread — no. 656 — as a FTR:

>>Events as we debate, sadly, are showing just how accurate and timely the analysis in the OP above is.

Now, in the OP I spoke to bringing a society to a ridge-line watershed that forces a wedging apart of a community, country or civilisation along double, mutually polarised slippery slopes leading to ruin. When I did so, I had no awareness of a pending White House announcement on transgender school bathrooms, much less of the reaction that would come forth from TX Lt Governor Dan Patrick.


[youtube IEt_L66tu4Q]

{Image Clip, HT Facebook:}


As Fox News informs:

Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick responded to a letter the Obama administration sent to every public school district in the country, which tells schools to allow transgender students to use the bathroom and locker rooms that match their chosen gender identity.

The letter warned that schools that do not comply may face lawsuits or loss of federal aid.

“This will be the end of public education, if this prevails,” Patrick said. “People will pull their kids out, homeschooling will explode, private schools will increase.”

Patrick asserted that it should be up to individual school districts to accommodate students, and schools shouldn’t be forced to obey a mandate from the federal government.

He said that he will direct superintendents in Texas not to obey the administration’s request.

The Deputy Governor also pointed out that this drives a values wedge across the nation, dividing families and School Districts, such that parents will be likely to demand charter schools or other private schools, and will drive many towards homeschooling. He summarised that the US$ 10 bn of Federal funding in Texas in large part funds school meal programmes, so the poor are being held hostage. The implication is, the public schools are liable to become indoctrination centres for an increasingly poor urban underclass whose children will come from single parent families and will often be from minorities that are already prone to be alienated. A happy hunting ground for cultural marxist activists, fellow travelers and their strategic backers.

Precisely, as warned against.

Already manifestly happening in real time right there in our headlines and news video feeds.

{Let me clip from the just linked, by way of explaining in brief the strategy of cultural marxism:

In effect, we see neo-Marxist analysis transformed from the classic class war to an ideology for identity/minority group activism driven by a sense of oppression to be overthrown; which — per fair comment — can all too easily be manipulated into subversion of institutions, law, policy and community life, in the end demanding approval of evil in the name of true freedom and liberation. Activisim that can easily become pretty ruthless factionalism that may easily run the risk of pushing democracy into mob rule. And, when ruthless activists gain institutional power, a big problem is that they have not learned the habits of sound, balanced, mutually respectful governance, but instead those of ruthlessness.}

In the same article, the White House reply through Press Secretary Josh Earnest premises that this is complaining of: “a problem that nobody can prove exists,” adding that “The guidance does not require any student to use shared facilities when schools make alternate arrangements.”

The underlying social wedge issue is obvious: the equality and rights talking points are being used to exploit a relatively small group of the sexually troubled, as the thin edge of a wedge meant to disrupt, divide, and polarise communities. Where, the extreme nominalist notion is that “gender” is a psychosocial construct, with no necessary connexion to sex stamped into our genes, the complementarity of men and women, requisites of sound child nurture in a stable family and community environment and the reasonably manifest core principles of natural law morality that ground conjugal marriage and family. Also, inviting the insinuation that the only reason to object to the latest of the ever more bizarre items on the agenda is bigotry, as opposed to reasonable concerns.

Perpetually, delegitimisation, stereotyping and demonisation and scapegoating of questioning much less objection.

The underlying un-answered issue is there in the OP: before one may legitimately and justly claim a right (thus demand that others have duties of care in a particular regard), one must first be in the right in accord with manifestly evident, objectively warranted core principles of the natural moral law. To demand a right, one must manifestly be in the right:

1 –> inescapably, we are morally governed as individuals and as communities.

2 –> on pain of immediate, patent absurdities, core moral principles are evident to conscience guided reason to certainty and are binding.

3 –> systems of thought that reduce morality to subjectivity, relativism or to illusion end in implying grand delusion and utter unreliability of our intelligence and conscience.

4 –> likewise, for things that undermine the premise that we have responsible, rational freedom and quasi-infinite worth and dignity; aptly captured in the traditional Judaeo Christan premise that we are equally created in the image of the good God and just Lord of all worlds.

5 –> Right to life, to liberty, to conscience and responsible expression, to innocent reputation, to the fruit of our labour and more flow from this, as say the US DoI of 1776 epochally acknowledges . . . .

7 –> In this context, a core basic right is a binding moral expectation to be respected in regards to key aspects of our nature. That is, it is the mirror image and dual of mutually binding obligations imposed by our nature and its inherent dignity. That is rights are inherently matters of moral law connected to our nature.

8 –> As a consequence, a rights claim is a claim to be in the right and to be owed duties of care by others of like morally freighted nature.

9 –> You cannot have a right to the wrong, you cannot demand that others enable and support you in the wrong, such is to poison other souls with the taint of compulsion to do and to support the wrong. Such is monstrous and wicked.

10 –> Likewise, there are no rights to twist key institutions crucial to human thriving as individuals, families and communities. For the blessings of the civil peace of justice and liberty under legitimate law are key requisites of human thriving.

11 –> This holds for demanding that marriage be perverted through lawfare and agit prop, and the linked demand that sexual perversion be acknowledged on equal terms with the manifest order of nature stamped into our genes, organs, biology of reproduction and social- psychological- relational requisites of sound child nurture.

Once the premise of inherently self-falsifying and amoral evolutionary materialist scientism dressed up in the lab coat is allowed to prevail, falsity is built into the yardsticks for evaluating facts, values, rights, justice, opinion and policy. When such happens, sound facts, sound lessons of history, sound principles, sound values, sound morals and sound proposals will seemingly come up short and pressure will be strong to rule against, dismiss and disregard them.

For falsity is judging truth, injustice and folly will prevail in a march to ruin if left unchecked.

Well did Jesus of Nazareth warn the world in his most famous sermon:

Matt 6:22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. If then your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eye is diseased, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! [NET]

So, now that facts are playing out on the ground in real time as warned, will we be now likely to see the strident objectors to the OP withdrawing their intemperate and reckless, often abusive accusations?

Don’t hold your breath.

Agendas, once set in motion and gathering momentum become hard to stop juggernauts and those caught up in them are very unlikely to see contrary reality until things crash hard.

That is the lesson of Ac 27, and of too much other history bought with blood and tears.>>

Of course, with a live thread already in progress, comments will be entertained there. This is a headlined augmented comment, for record and in the face of some very intemperate things backed up by a cyber stalking attempt by some of the usual suspects. END