Kathleen Stock Dissects “The Family Sex Show” and its Enablers

Kathleen Stock does a deep dive here. What is driving this behavior? Fascinating and disturbing on many levels. And yes, I also wondered whether any of these people have children. An excerpt:

This week a story broke in the UK about a forthcoming theatre production, to be aimed at five-year-olds and older. The somewhat surprising title of this venture was The Family Sex Show. The theatre company responsible had impeccable-looking credentials, with breathless reviews and several awards for earlier productions. This new project, originally commissioned under the auspices of a Leverhulme Arts Scholarship, had been funded to the tune of £82,784 via two separate project grants from Arts Council England, and was developed in a number of prestigious venues including Battersea Arts Centre, the National Theatre, the Southbank Centre, and Theatre Royal Bath. The show’s mission, as described on the associated website, was to provide:
a fun and silly performance about the painfully AWKWARD subject of sex, exploring names and functions, boundaries, consent, pleasure, queerness, sex, gender and relationships.

. . .

Back in reality, there’s only so long that progressives can carry on pretending that the only possible objections to things like The Family Sex Show must come from prudes who don’t like sex, or bigots who don’t like queer people. Supercharged by the internet, contemporary sexual culture is spiralling off a cliff and taking a lot of young people with it, and increasingly large numbers of ordinary parents and teachers are finding this objectionable for very good reason. Some of these even vote Labour - or would do, if they could get a clear sign from their party that it’s prepared to make a distinction in public between its own position and “what Owen Jones thinks is OK”. If it can’t do this, it faces problems at the ballot box. Meanwhile, since nobody votes Arts Council members in or out, for theatre-goers there are still many long evenings ahead, sitting on uncomfortable chairs and watching white people with interesting haircuts talk earnestly about squirting.

Continue ReadingKathleen Stock Dissects “The Family Sex Show” and its Enablers

Georgetown University’s Free Speech Problem

Modern minds, even sophisticated ones, increasingly struggle to recognize two completely orthogonal concepts: A) The content of speech (which we might disagree with or even find offensive) and B) the right to speak. That a large university purporting to uphold free and open inquiry (see comments) refuses to recognize this distinction and promptly act on it is an embarrassment.

FIRE's Headline: "Georgetown’s investigation of a single tweet taking longer than 12 round-trips to the moon." The money quote:

“It’s laughable that Georgetown Law’s administrators would need even one day to pore over a tweet,” said FIRE Executive Director Robert Shibley. “But if they’re determined to use their magnifying glasses on the tweet until they find something punishable, they’ll be investigating until their retirement.”
Here's Georgetown's policy strongly in favor of free speech.

Continue ReadingGeorgetown University’s Free Speech Problem

Two Versions of Free Speech

Tara Henley describes two versions of free speech citing to Jacob Mchangama's excellent new book. Henley's article is "Who gets to speak?If we want a free society – we must affirm freedom of speech for everyone, including Joe Rogan and the truckers." Here's an excerpt:

Danish lawyer Jacob Mchangama is set to publish his brilliant debut next week, Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media. In it, the human-rights advocate chronicles “elite panics” of the past, which, he points out on Twitter, hold relevance for the current moment.

Elite panics involve an outbreak of angst among the wealthy and powerful — and they’ve been happening for millennia. And, while such outbursts can reflect real concerns, Mchangama writes in his book, “it is notable that they tend to erupt whenever the public sphere is expanded.” He goes on to explain: “Upon the introduction of new technology that gives access to those previously unheard, the traditional gatekeepers of public opinion fear that the newcomers will manipulate the masses through dangerous ideas, and propaganda, threatening the established social and political order.”

These conflicts, Mchangama notes, represent a clash between egalitarian and elitist conceptions of free speech. One sees free speech as a right for all; the other would have it be a privilege for those enlightened enough to use it properly.

Continue ReadingTwo Versions of Free Speech

Legislation Proposed to Clarify the Rights of Parents of Gender Dysphoric Children Attending Public Schools

Attorney Luke Berg is asking state legislatures to clarify the rights of parents, especially in cases where public schools are secretly affirming a child's transition while at school. Here is some background and the key points Berg is proposing:

In the past few years, school districts nationwide have quietly adopted policies requiring staff to facilitate and “affirm” gender identity transitions at school without parental notice or consent—and even in secret from parents. Certain groups are telling school boards and administrators that excluding parents from the decision about whether staff will treat their child as the opposite sex is not only best practice but required by law. Neither is true. Such policies fly in the face of how schools treat every other decision of similar significance.

From a legal perspective, these policies violate parents’ constitutional rights to raise their children. They also conflict with science. Many professionals in the field believe that transitioning at a young age can become self-reinforcing and do long-term harm. And these policies divide children against parents, communicating to kids that their parents’ decisions should not be respected.

Key Points

• Schools have a long-standing tradition and legal obligation to inform parents of their children’s medical and behavioral issues and to honor their decisions about what’s best for their kids. Yet, prompted by a well-organized lobby, many school districts have decided that minor students can change gender identity at school without any parental involvement.

• A gender identity transition is a major event in a child’s life. It can have long-term effects on a child’s psyche and sense of identity, and, as a result, many mental health professionals recommend a more cautious approach, first helping children process what they are feeling and why.

• The increasingly common practice of rushing to “affirm”and facilitate a transition at school without informing parents, and even refusing to follow their wishes, runs directly against a strong body of case law recognizing parents’ constitutional right to raise their children.

• State lawmakers can and should clarify that school districts must defer to parents when children struggle with gender identity issues.

. . .

Even if political pressure fails, these policies are vulnerable to lawsuits. As discussed briefly above, a long line of cases from the United States Supreme Court holds that parents have a fundamental right, under the 14th Amendment, to “direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.” This is “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by” the Court.

. . .

To be clear, such a bill would not, as some will likely argue, require teachers to immediately “out” to parents any student who has questions about these issues and confides in a teacher (though teachers must be permitted to communicate openly with parents about this, because this can be a serious mental health issue). But if a student wants to take the major step to transition, asking all teach- ers and staff to treat him or her as the opposite sex while at school, that should require parental per- mission, just as taking medication at school does, because—as noted above—social affirmation is a medical intervention. Teachers can still be a safe space for students to process these issues while gently explaining to students who want to transition that this is a big decision and that they need to involve their parents if they want to do so at school with the support of staff.

No parents should go through what Jay Keck58 went through, suddenly discovering one day that his daughter had changed gender identity at school, with the school’s active participation and affirmation but without any notice to him. No parents should go through what the Kettle Moraine parents went through, being forced to withdraw their daughter from public school just to protect her and preserve their parental role.

A bill to prevent this should find broad support among parents and constituents. Most parents are outraged when they learn that school districts are excluding parents from this major decision. Even parents who ultimately would allow an immediate transition should want and expect to be involved. Those who support these policies should be forced to defend them publicly and explain why they believe it’s ever appropriate to hide such a serious issue from parents or to subvert the parents’ decision about what’s best for their child. These poli- cies have been implemented quietly for a reason. A public debate that brings them to light may be all that’s needed to start eliminating them.

Continue ReadingLegislation Proposed to Clarify the Rights of Parents of Gender Dysphoric Children Attending Public Schools

Definition of Cancel Culture

Greg Lukianoff defines "cancel culture," documents its existence and urges that we not give in to its perpetrators who claims that it does not exist:

A culture of censorship—of shaming, shunning, and attempting to destroy people’s lives for ideological reasons—exists in America, and Americans have a name for it: cancel culture.

Let’s not abandon that name in a vain attempt to please the people most responsible for perpetuating the problem.

Continue ReadingDefinition of Cancel Culture