At the orthodox Catholic Crisis Magazine Emmett J. McGroarty and Jane W. Robbins inform us of: “Transgenderism: A Leftist Weapon Against the Family.” Who knew? Both authors are lawyers (not social scientists) who are affiliated with Robert P. George’s American Principles Project. You might recall that APP was intent on ousting Kevin Jennings from the Department of Education. At something that APP called the Innocence Project,” Robert George made a very odious video (which has been scrubbed from the Internet) claiming that Jennings presented a threat to children. Not much has changed.
The Los Angeles Times recently published an approving article about schools’ introducing kindergartners to gender dysphoria (otherwise known as transgenderism). This topic has been much in the news lately, especially after a California charter school—without notifying parents—held a “gender-reveal ceremony” for a confused little boy.
Just for starters gender dysphoria is not “otherwise known as transgenderism.” They are two entirely different things. Gender dysphoria has a wide range of discomfort. Many, if not most, people with gender dysphoria are not transgender. Being transgender is a means (through gender affirmation) of mitigating the most severe effects of gender dysphoria: Anxiety and depression. Research demonstrates the effectiveness of gender affirmation, particularly in children. Thus it drastically reduces the potential for self-harm. That child is not confused. McGroarty and Robbins are painfully confused.
Leftists insist that this kind of activity in schools is necessary to make dysphoric children feel accepted and secure. Maybe. But there is a darker agenda at work, one that has been in play for at least a century.
Here we go with a conspiracy theory — after I try to cut through a fertilized rice paddy.
If you were educated before the onset of Common Core, you probably read the 1932 British novel Brave New World. One aspect of the “utopia” described by Aldous Huxley was the forced sexualization of children. Young children were sent into the gardens naked and encouraged to engage in “ordinary erotic play.” …
Common core would not eliminate Brave New World from required reading. In any event, you see where this is going.
Why would a totalitarian government do this? Wouldn’t it be more likely to crack down on sexual relations, the better to control every aspect of human behavior?
The answer is well elucidated by J. Douglas Johnson in a recent essay for Crisis magazine. Johnson explains that the term “sexual revolution” was coined in the 1920s by Dr. Wilhelm Reich, an atheist psychiatrist in Sigmund Freud’s clinic who joined the Communist Party and referred to himself as a “Freudo-Marxist.” Reich devoutly believed in the Marxist idea of utopia, but he recognized the problem with Marx’s proposition that such human happiness could be achieved only by the abolition of religion. When Judeo-Christian religious beliefs were so deeply ingrained in Western countries, how could their influence be eradicated?
For starters we do not have a totalitarian government — even under Agent Orange. Nor do we embrace Marxism, including liberals. Religion in this country enjoys constitutional protection. Then they are creating a conspiracy theory around a blog post explaining who coined the term “sexual revolution” as if that had some effect on our culture. Had some priest coined the term, whatever it is, or was, would remain the same. The whole thing is preposterous.
This is all zebras and horses. You know, if you hear hooves, think horses. A variation of this is Occam’s Razor which states that the simplest explanation (the one with the fewest assumptions) is most likely to be the correct explanation among competing hypotheses. And by the way, William of Ockham was a Franciscan friar. The simplest explanation is the one that they first propose. We (society) are trying to protect trans and gender nonconforming kids. That’s it. Nothing more. This mess does not improve with increasing verbosity.
Reich understood that Soviet-style brute force couldn’t accomplish this goal—but Western societies could be hollowed out from within. And the best way to accomplish this, he argued, was to spark a “sexual revolution” that would destroy the natural family.
We are not mind readers. We do not know what Reich did or did not understand. Reich was an extremely controversial crackpot who, at some point, claimed that he could cure cancer. Reich’s influence was extremely limited. His books had to be self-published and unlikely to have wide readership. And, by the way, it probably wasn’t the 1920s. Reich wrote The Sexual Revolution in 1936. To top it all off, Reich died in prison (sentenced to one year for contempt of court). The judge also ordered a psychiatric evaluation. Just how influential do they think an unstable and highly controversial psychiatrist could be? It is downright nutty.
“Reich correctly surmised,” Johnson writes, “that the way to knock the props out from underneath the American family would be to condition Western man to see contraception, fornication, pornography, sodomy, etc. as perfectly normal and not unhealthy things.” Reich also urged implementation of sex education in schools as the best way to “divest parents of their moral authority.”
For my own mental hygiene I am going to stop at this point. It makes no sense to go any further because Johnson is not authoritative (he was the marketing director of a highway construction company for 20 years and is currently an apparently unsuccessful self-employed software developer); Dr. Reich did not shape our culture and there is no sinister conspiracy theory based on a conspiracy theory to eradicate the American family. It is reminiscent of the crackpots who claimed that the goal of gay people through marriage equality was to destroy marriage. How are we doing?
Neither McGroarty or Robbins seem to have done much lawyering. Robbins has a law degree from Harvard. McGroarty’s is from Fordham. Neither of these people are idiots. They have simply surrendered whatever critical thinking skills they might have had to the cult of orthodox religion. None of this makes the least bit of sense. It is incoherent nonsense trying — unsuccessfully — to conform social science to the catechism of the Catholic church.