The normalization of pedophilia through abolishing age of consent laws.
Am I being alarmist? Thread:
Queer theory argues that the gender binary is an oppressive social construct. Women are "constructed" as weak and helpless, 1/
while men are constructed as strong and competent. Thus, "liberation" requires us to expose and deconstruct the gender binary.
But the gender binary is just one of *many* oppressive binaries. Here's Wilchins in Queer Theory, Gender Theory (46-47) 2/
What's another binary? The adult/child binary. Listen to Lakey et al: "People are just beginning to have a glimpse of what oppression based on age involves.. Children are...considered helpless, dependent, and cute..They experience 10-15 years of unpaid labor and brainwashing" 3/
Or look at this chart (Figure 5.1) from Sensoy and DiAngelo in Is Everyone Really Equal? Notice the oppression of "children" by "adults" via "adultism": 4/
Or look at the Matrix of Oppression from Appendix C from Adams' Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice. "Young people" (not "Young adults"!) are oppressed by adults through "Adultism". 5/
Their argument is that "child" is a socially constructed category that deprives children of agency and power, just like the category of "woman" is socially constructed to deprive women of agency and power.
Children need to be "protected" just like women need to be "protected" 6/
"BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT!" you scream. "CHILDREN REALLY AREN'T CAPABLE OF MAKING THESE DECISIONS"
"Yeah right," says the critical theorist, "that's exactly what men said about women for centuries. In both cases, these claims are just power plays to justify oppression." 7/
"BUT WHAT ABOUT CONSENT?" you demand, "CHILDREN CAN'T CONSENT!"
"Because they're 'inferior' and 'immature'?" says the CT. " But we've already deconstructed that claim."
"NO" you say, "BUT BECAUSE OF POWER DIFFERENTIALS" 8/
Listen to Jagose in Queer Theory, An Introduction:
*Follow her reasoning.*
She asks: if you accept that sexual consent is possible despite "power differentials" between people of color/whites and women/men and rich/poor, THEN WHY THINK THEY MAKE SEXUAL CONSENT IMPOSSIBLE FOR CHILDREN?
9/
Moreover, haven't you heard the argument that "third genders exist in other cultures, so the gender binary is fake"?
Well, what about childhood sex in other cultures? Aren't those practices grounds for questioning our culture's taboos about "pedophilia"?
Here's Halperin: 10/
"OK BUT THIS IS ALL SCAREMONGERING. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN, " you say.
I'll leave you with a quote from Kadji Amin's Disturbing Attachments, Genet, Modern Pederasty, and Queer
History.
11/11
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I keep seeing awful takes about how "nO oNe iS qUaLiFiEd tO hOmEsChOoL," so here's a quick thread.
First, it's crazy for college-educated people to claim they can't homeschool. Can you read? Can you multiply? That's K-3rd right there (long division isn't until 4th!) 1/
This objection is particularly strange because -when I was a kid- lots of my classmates were already reading when they entered kindergarten. Who taught them? Their governess?
And if you understand fractions and percentages, you'll be fine through 6th grade, at least. 2/
Second, when people ask "what about subjects other than English and math?" my short answer is "they can do it later."
Seriously.
"Reading, writing, and 'rithmetic" is actually a wise slogan. Once you really master these, history/biology/geography/etc. are straightforward. 3/
I just finished a section on queer theory for my new book. Check out this fascinating example of queer theory's inherent instability.
Here's the original "Genderbread Person," created by cartoonist Sam Killerman in Jan. 2012. Notice the four categories and double arrows: 1/
Fast forward to March 2012. This is "Genderbread Person 2.1"
Each double arrow has now split into *two* separate arrows because the original figure implied that you exist at one place on the woman-man spectrum. Note also the extra text explaining how complicated gender is. 2/
It's 2015, and now we have a rival depiction, because Genderbread Person was problematic.
The Gender Unicorn splits sexual orientation into two categories, and has added a third arrow to each category, as well as fixing "several other issues" with the Genderbread graphic. 3/
Enjoyed @AbigailShrier's excellent talk at UNC last night. Some selected (rough) quotes from my 5-pages of notes:
"Gender ideology is a religion: gender identity is the secular version of a soul and gender transition is baptism."
1/
To parents of college students:
"Schools are not your friends. They will undermine you at every turn... If your Ivy League kid declares they're trans, ditch your Ivy League dreams and pull them out or you'll look back and wish you had." 2/
On UNC's free-speech group:
"It's great that you're part of a free-speech group, but you shouldn't need to be. Free speech should be the default on college campuses." 3/
My wife and I first attended Summit 13 years ago. There was a small coffee bar in the foyer and the church bulletin was well-designed and glossy. There were video trailers before the sermon.
I was offended.
I was thinking of my old church in New Haven, CT.
1/
It had no money. The church bulletin was printed five minutes before service by the church secretary. We rented space from a SDA church.
"That's a *real* church," I thought to myself. "Not this Joel Osteen stuff."
But we stayed for the service.
2/
The worship songs were theologically rich, and I still remember the sermon. Trevor Atwood preached on adoption from Ephesians. He had adopted two sons internationally, and he preached the glorious doctrine of our adoption as sons of God.
What’s the optimal way to play poker? I was curious, so over the weekend, I solved a simple version of this problem.
The results were fascinating: 1/
Let's imagine a game called "poker-lite." Two players each put an ante of $1 into a pot and are each given a card numbered 0 to 100.
Player 1 can either fold (Player 2 wins the pot), or bet $1.
Then Player 2 can either fold (Player 1 wins the pot) or also bet $1 to call. 2/
If Player 2 calls, then the player with the higher card wins the pot.
IOW:
If Player 1 folds, Player 2 wins $1.
If Player 1 bets, and then Player 2 folds, Player 1 wins $1.
If neither player folds, then the player with the higher card wins $2.
""the central ideas of contemporary critical theorists must be rejected by Christians...they have adopted a framework that is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity in numerous ways." 2/ christianlegalsociety.org/sites/default/…