Promoting bigotry without being criticized is a “Christian privilege” that they are trying to protect.
Once again, Catholic extremist Jonathon Van Maren claims that knowledge of LGBTQ persons poses a danger to children. The (verbose) title of his Tuesday diatribe is: Another kids’ show becomes shill for LGBT cause: ‘Muppet Babies’ promotes transgenderism, cross-dressing.
A “shill” is a con artist’s accomplice or assistant. Gender-diversity exists. That should be an indisputable fact. The Vatican would like people to believe that gender-incongruence is just a confusion adopted by a group of people who have made terrible choices.
A feeble attempt to define the peril:
Van Maren believes that there is an “iceberg of LGBT content aimed at children.” An “iceberg” suggests a hidden peril. I have never understood why knowledge of the existence of LGBTQ people poses a danger to children.
Apparently, transgender people do not really exist despite comprising about 0.5% of the population. Gay people are supposedly “objectively disordered” in spite of the fact that the CEO of arguably the largest company in the world (Apple) is gay.
“The privilege is an entitlement to promote prejudice free of opprobrium.”
If nothing else, the “objectively disordered” doctrine is a subjective religious belief. A hidden peril which does not exist does exist. I am profoundly confused. I will get to the specifics of Van Maren’s kvetch. However, what is never clearly defined is the nature of the supposed danger.
If kids learn about the presence of LGBTQ people, does that somehow encourage them to adopt a disapproved form of sexuality? Caitlyn Jenner is a candidate for governor of California. She is transgender. Does exposure to Jenner’s existence pose a threat to children?
Or, in point of fact, does Caitlyn Jenner really threaten mostly white Christian privilege? The privilege is an entitlement to promote prejudice without receiving justified criticism.
“LGBTQ rights and tolerance are a function of the realization that sexuality is not a choice.”
Thus, the peril is not to children but to unchallenged bigotry. Children are exploited as a device to further that same bigotry as an entitlement that is not subject to discreditation.
After all, prejudice is best defeated through a set of evidence-based facts. Which brings me back to Jonathon Van Maren’s personality disorder:
The entertainment industry – including children’s storytellers – have decided that a) it is in their commercial interests to cast in their lot with the LGBT movement, which has accumulated a tremendous amount of power over the past decade and b) that doing this will put them on the Right Side of History. Those who disagree with this shift are, of course, on the Wrong Side of History.
Keep in mind what Mr. Van Maren probably sees as a danger. It is a privilege that he is trying to protect. The above quote is fairly accurate.
It is no secret that I am a raging capitalist. There is nothing wrong with an economic motive. I think that companies are appealing to American fairness. Fairness is a treasured American value.
As for being on the “right side of history,” that ship has sailed. Theoretically, LGBTQ rights and tolerance are a function of the realization that sexuality is not a choice. Once people come to that conclusion there is less reason to be prejudiced.
“I must be a terrible activist. I do not give a flying fuck about a cartoon character’s sexuality.”
That realization is likely to increase over time. People like Jonathon Van Maren who (repeating myself) wants to promote bigotry based on religious dogma yet remain free of criticism are threatened by the loss of an entitlement.
On July 23, Disney Junior aired an episode titled “Gonzo-rella,” in which baby Gonzo wears a princess dress to a royal ball. The lesson to children is simple. Piggy first declares that girls dress as princesses, and boys come as knights. But a “fairy ratfather” turns Gonzo into a princess and leaves a glass slipper behind in a gender-non-conforming knockoff of Cinderella. When the Muppet Babies find out what happened, they ask him why he hid his cross-dressing.
It is a reasonable certainty that the character did not refer to cross-dressing.
“To identify the problem you simply need to answer the question: Who feels threatened?”
“The lesson to children” follows in the next paragraph. Van Maren is too brainwashed to realize what he is portraying:
“You all expected me to look a certain way,” he replied. “I don’t want you to be upset with me, but I don’t want to do things because that’s the way they’ve always been done either. I want to be me.” The Muppet Babies, having learned their lesson, apologize to Gonzo and tell him that they love him “any way you are.” The response from LGBT activists was immediate: They declared Gonzo a “non-binary icon.”
I must be a terrible activist. I do not give a flying fuck about a cartoon character’s sexuality.
“The real danger to children exists if they hear bigoted messages.”
Furthermore, whatever any supposed activist (they are always present in Christian anti-LGBTQ mythology) thinks has absolutely no effect on the kids that watch the cartoon.
The lesson for kids is to look past superficial qualities and appreciate people based upon their character. That seems like a valuable lesson. What is the problem? (That is a rhetorical question.)
It may seem silly to some of you to point out that fake cartoon characters are promoting gender fluidity. But children’s stories come with messages for children to learn, and this particular lesson is that cross-dressing should be encouraged
Yeah, it is silly and, … petty.
Why are they so stuck on “fluidity?” The above is insane! The only thing being “promoted” is tolerance. The only thing that is being “encouraged” is kindness towards people who are different.
In sum, the perceived Christian privilege harms other people. The real danger to children exists if they hear bigoted messages.