“It is more plausible to believe that Michael Brown is a closet case than to believe that Pete Buttigieg corrupted a kid with coming-out advice?”
Michael Brown

Dr. Michael Brown has been rather restrained lately. The deranged anti-LGBTQ bigot returns to form with: Mayor Pete, Stop Fostering the Sexualization of Little Children. From my perspective, Pete Buttigieg is an energetic guy who is extraordinarily intelligent and who happens to be gay.

For people like Michael Brown, Mr. Buttigieg poses a serious danger. He is a homosexual with a loud microphone. Buttigieg’s enormous intellect, superior education, being a Rhodes Scholar, deployment to Afghanistan, government service, business experience and leadership skills are irrelevant. Buttigieg is gay and that is all that matters.

According to Brown:

What does a 9-year-old child know about sexuality? What does a pre-pubescent [sic] boy know about the meaning of “gay”? How many boys of that age still dream innocently of marrying their mothers? It is therefore absolutely outrageous that presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg gave a national platform to a 9-year-old who wanted advice on coming out as gay.

Funny he should ask. According to research:

Gay males were, on average, aware of same-sex attraction at about age 9; the average age for lesbians was 10.

I wish, at that age, that I had role models like Pete Buttigieg. Furthermore, Mr. Brown, nothing that Buttigieg might say or do could possibly change the sexual orientation of that boy. What I find “absolutely outrageous” is Brown’s suggestion that Buttigieg is a corrupting influence. For someone with a legitimate PhD, Brown can be spectacularly stupid.

The simple scientific fact is that sexual orientation cannot be influenced by others. This precept is most important when applied to parents. When parents accept their gay children they do not make their kids any gayer. Similarly, when parents reject their gay children the kids stay gay and become neurotic. The same principle applies to gender diverse children.

Tired tirade

This is as shameful as it is irresponsible. That there was not an immediate, national outcry points to the morally confused and spiritually comatose condition of much of our country.

As reported by the New York Post, “A 9-year-old Colorado boy got kudos from openly gay Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg when he asked him during a rally for help telling the world that he’s also gay.”

The absence of Brown’s desired collective opprobrium is based primarily on the fact that most rational people believe that there is nothing wrong with being a gay person. In fact, many Christian and Jewish clerics share that view. Morality might be best defined by how we treat others. It is Mr. Brown who is “morally confused.”

So far, the only consequence that Brown has cited is the supposed sexualization of a child. That is a ridiculous notion. We all have a sexual orientation and we all have a gender identity. Those are formed by about two-years-of-age. By sexualization, Brown means sexual objectification. Only in his deranged mind is that the case. Unless, of course, Michael Brown has some awkward fantasies.

That is not idle speculation. Many people who are exceptionally homophobic are also insecure over their own sexuality. Brown is obsessed with LGBTQ people. It is more plausible to believe that Michael Brown is a closet case than to believe that Pete Buttigieg corrupted a kid with coming-out advice.

Sane people “get it”

The boy’s name was Zachary Ro, and his question, which he wrote on a piece of paper, read, “Thank you for being so brave. Would you help me tell the world I’m gay too? I want to be brave like you.”

Not surprisingly, his question “was met with cheers and chants of ‘Love means love’ from the nearly 4,000 people in attendance.”

Buttigieg was so impressed with the question that he brought the boy on the platform, together with his mother. And he commended the boy’s courage, saying, “I don’t think you need a lot of advice from me on bravery; you seem pretty strong.”

I am impressed as well with young Mr. Ro and his parents. Brown is troubled because the principal lever used to obtain religious conformity is shame. Zachary and his mother cannot be shamed because they subscribe to medical science. Brown has lost a means of coercing them, and others, into dogmatic compliance.

Pete Buttigieg handled the situation perfectly. Like it or not, Buttigieg is a role model. Buttigieg was responsible, courteous and candid. Our current president is heterosexual but he is irresponsible, boorish and a pathological liar. I haven’t made up my mind on who should be the Democratic nominee but Buttigieg, in my opinion, would make an honest, devoted, analytical and studious president.

Let the bullshit flow to part the Red Sea

Remember. This child is only 9 years old.

He is pre-pubescent. [sic]

He is only a few years removed from thinking that boys who like girls have “the cooties.” (Do you remember hearing that in kindergarten and the first grade?)

And surveys have indicated that plenty of teenagers who identify as gay no longer do so when they reach adulthood. (See below for more.)

The word is prepubescent. It is not hyphenated. A nine-year-old is in fourth grade, not kindergarten or first grade. “See below” is a reference to a blog post regarding research published to The Journal of Sex Research. It is based on data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health, which tracked American students from the ages of 16-18 into their late twenties and early thirties.

We have known for some time that there is some fluidity in sexual orientation. This is based on something that Brown will never admit; the fact that sexual orientation is a continuum with homosexual and heterosexual at the extreme ends. There can be some movement in the needle but Brown overstates the effect.

Moreover, a peer-reviewed commentary is published to the same journal by another researcher who directly questions the methodology and validity of the hypotheses of the original article.

All of that is irrelevant

Brown is suggesting (with some help from my Christianist-to-English app) that Buttigieg is somehow locking this boy into his sexuality which might change. Rubbish!

  • While there is some evidence of fluidity, the overwhelming majority of people do not experience sufficient change to go from, say, straight to gay or vice versa.
  • The potential for a change of sexual orientation is the same in both directions.
  • Fluidity of sexual orientation is like outdoor temperature. It changes from time-to-time but there is not much we can do to influence those changes.

In other words, Zachary will almost certainly be a gay adult and nothing that Pete Buttigieg did, could do or should do will have any effect whatsoever on Zachary’s sexual orientation; now or in the future.

In other words, my hypothesis is that Michael Brown is seeking a means of criticizing Pete Buttigieg because of his sexual orientation. The relevance and intellectual honesty of this particular ridicule is of secondary importance to the act of ridicule.

–Generous drivelectomy–

How dare any of us put a 9-year-old child like this on public display, now branding him for life as gay. What if Zachary wants to “take it back” in a few years? What then?

Zachary’s sexuality is, and will be, whatever it is or will be. His romantic attractions dictate his sexual orientation and those are not subject to outside influences. Again, Pete Buttigieg did nothing wrong.

What would a Michael Brown diatribe be without comparing gay men to pedophiles?

If there is one accusation that gay men hate more than any other, it is the accusation that they are pedophiles. That all (or most) homosexual men are interested in having sexual relationships with boys. That it is not safe to leave a boy alone in the presence of a gay male. That all (or most of them) are child abusers. Every gay man with whom I have talked over the years has categorically and emphatically rejected these accusations. And I, for one, believe them.

Yet, Brown felt compelled to write the above. Note how Brown has an extensive network of gay men he speaks with.

Recruitment anyone?

In my view, the real danger is one of older homosexuals influencing impressionable children. Of indoctrination more than seduction. Of persuasion, not rape. That’s one reason I raised concerns about the potential, negative impact of a President Pete Buttigieg.

Brown is full of crap. He raised concerns in order to ridicule Pete Buttigieg solely because the candidate is gay. Conversion therapy does not work. There is no evidence that any gay man could ever make a straight adolescent become gay. It doesn’t work like that.

“And I, for one believe them.” Apparently not. Enter NAMBLA:

Of course, there is no denying the well-known tradition of “man-boy love” in homosexual history, from the “mentoring” of ancient Greece to the NAMBLA societies of today. Calling it “intergenerational intimacy” does not make it any less heinous.

Greek pederasty is part of heterosexual history. The same was true in ancient Rome. The men who had sex with adolescent boys were not gay men. Gay men stayed well hidden from society. These were straight, mostly married, male aristocrats who did what was acceptable in society as long as they were the “top.”

Comparing gay men to members of NAMBLA is outrageous bigotry. It is no more responsible than using Jeffrey Epstein as an exemplar of heterosexual men. But Michael Brown cannot help himself. And you wonder why I question Brown’s sexuality?

Several more paragraphs about supposed gay pederasty lead to this:

What about children even younger? What about a 12-year-old? An 11-year-old? A 10-year-old? A 9-year-old?

Can such a young, developing child even know for sure that he or she is “gay”?

Does a 10-year-old understand sexuality? Can a 9-year-old truly understand the difference between male-female relationships, let alone the concept of “sexual orientation”?

That’s why the recent, public interaction between Zachary and Mayor Pete is so disturbing.

According to the research (cited above) boys appreciate their sexual orientation at about nine-years-of-age. It is formed about seven years earlier. The “concept” and the romantic attraction are two very different things. They represent the contrast between abstraction and perception.

Are you not disturbed that Dr. Michael Brown is disturbed? I find it disturbing that readers might be disturbed. I find it profoundly disturbing that Brown thinks that this has something to do with NAMBLA. Unhinged abject bigotry “is so disturbing.”

That it was an out and proud, gay presidential candidate who did so on a national stage only underscores the madness of the hour. And it is a foretaste of just what we could expect from an out and proud gay president. My warnings are not exaggerated.

Let us, then, shout it from the rooftops, regardless of the mockery we will take from today’s “enlightened” society.

We dare not be silent for the sake of the children.

One way to guarantee being labeled a bigot is to claim that gay people pose a peril to children. The opprobrium that he redefines as mockery (mocked people are victims) is well deserved and when did enlightenment become a source for derision? LGBTQ equality is largely dependent upon acceptance of science.

Christian zealots have a hundred reasons why science that they do not like is wrong. The gay can be prayed away and sexuality is a choice. Just ask them.

If anything our society coddles people who believe to a certainty that the cosmos is in the control of an old guy with a long gray beard sitting on a cloud. They seek salvation from original sins by a woman who was made from the rib of a man who was manufactured from dust.

I have no quarrel with faith. That is, until — with selective observation — it is used to oppress others. Michael Brown seems wed to the notion that his religious beliefs excuse his sociopathy towards others. Not a chance!

Related content:

By David Cary Hart

Retired CEO. Formerly a W.E. Deming-trained quality-management consultant. Now just a cranky Jewish queer. Gay cis. He/Him/His.