No Campus For Old Men

While Jonah traverses the Virginia woodlands, David French assumes control of the Remnant. His guest ...

By

While Jonah traverses the Virginia woodlands, David French assumes control of the Remnant. His guest is Jonathan Rauch, who returns to provide a refreshingly calm perspective on our debates over gender and inclusion. After breaking down the history of the LGBTQ movement, Jonathan and David evaluate the Lia Thomas situation, Florida’s controversial education bill, and how conservatives should approach radical gender ideology. They also discuss a potential academic pushback against cancel culture, and the dangers of misusing the term “groomer” for political gain.

Show Notes:

– Jonathan’s previous Remnant appearance

– Jonathan’s latest book, The Constitution of Knowledge

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (95)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. LLG

    I've scanned and read these comments, and I find that apparently I'm the only one who thought that in the explanation of the true meaning of the definition of "groomer," there was a missed opportunity. David French is correct is saying the right is way out of line in calling those who oppose the Florida bill "groomers." But, coopting the meaning of words has been an issue with the gay movement as well - and they have succeeded more with little pushback.

    In the context of this discussion, the definition of marriage came to mind. One man, one woman. Now, that has been altered in many ways (one man, many women being the obvious example) throughout the ages. But, best I understand history, marriage involved a union of the opposite genders.

    If two same-sex individuals want to pledge their partnership for life, so be it. Let them have legal rights to spousal benefits. But, they have coopted the term marriage to ... what's the word I'm looking for ... legitimize? ... that relationship. Call it something else. But, it's not "marriage" as I understood in Judeo Christian and other historical traditions.

    It just would have been nice to have a little pushback in David's stern lecture about redefining words to call strikes on the other team too.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    BethFreitag

    This has been frustrating to listen to and with 20 minutes left to go I don't know if I'll finish. I appreciate and agree that "groomer" is wildly inappropriate and unacceptable, but blood libel? Really?

    A tremendous amount of time was spent criticizing the Florida law and nut picking the right (Ruby Bridges book), but I haven't heard any discussion of the reason behind the law. Does David think that parents have any legitimate concern about transgender ideology being taught to elementary students?

    Collapse
  3. Luke Robson

    I understand that the problem is perhaps not widespread as of today, but is it really inappropriate to refer to the mischief that Florida's HB 1557 as "grooming"? It is simply a fact that there are a number of teachers out there who enjoy teaching young children about their sexual orientation and sexual practice (see the "Libs of Tik Tok" Twitter page for a stream of literal admissions). It is also true that some school districts or paragovernmental organizations have established policies that encourage deviant sexual teaching at precisely the young grades that Florida is targeting with HB 1557 (https://nypost.com/2022/04/08/nj-kids-to-learn-about-gender-identity-under-sex-ed-curriculum/; see also https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dge2a30qi05brxw/AADZE5YRB-DViEZ-eiLQ1yoYa/By%20the%20end%20of%20Grade%202?dl=0&preview=3Rs-NJ_PinkBluePurple.pdf&subfolder_nav_tracking=1). Finally, it is true that government actors are seeking to condemn those who would attempt to push back against these efforts as far right bigots (Jen Psaki has recently stated that laws that would prohibit sexual exploitation of children amount to "attack[s on] vulnerable transgender kids: https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1512189725557227522?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1512189725557227522%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Fdreher%2Fjen-psaki-groomers-spokeswoman-transgender-children%2F).

    I understand that the Florida bill may not be the best possible bill, but it's undeniable that it is looking to prevent practices that are actively being pursued in school districts today. At the end of the day, there absolutely are school districts that are seeking to enforce an ultra-progressive view of sexuality on 5 y/o children. It is not unreasonable for a legislature to say "this will not be done in our public schools" but this podcast seems to imply that it is actually unreasonable.

    Collapse
  4. Mr. Mark

    I would refer you to "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" for the canonical pronunciation of bonafide: https://youtu.be/VXmeBUZtdI8

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Jared

    Am I missing something or was way, way to much ground given on both transgenderism and same sex marriage in the interest of criticizing “radicals”? This made podcast made it sound like transgenderism (and same sex marriage for that matter) are legit and just need to be rescued from radicals on the left smuggling in other agendas and from bigots on the right. To tell the truth, the dispatch in general is not very good at giving the strongest arguments against transgenderism and same sex marriage.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    hajaXavier

    Excellent conversation. Amazing. Should be required listening for many.

    Re: bona fide. What's wrong with the perfectly good English phrase good faith? 🤔😉 Everyone can pronounce that. I always prefer an English word when speaking English (epicaricacy vs schadenfreude) or a Spanish word when speaking Spanish (correo vs mail).

    Collapse
  7. Eric Swenson

    Well, I left this one with feelings. (Namely the kind that mean I need to stop listening to pods and start listening to grunge rock for a while)

    The whole school subject is hard now that I have kids. It was purely academic before (har har) but now it's practical. And I'm concerned. Not so much from the standpoint of immediate problems. I don't really have issues with my school district. Yet. I also have very little faith in the tools that I will have when I do have issues. I'm a Christian conservative in Connecticut. The weight of this state is not on my side, and while the rise of right-wing state power in concerning, it's noticeable in part because it's unusual. Left-wing state power is nothing new, and I would sort of like to have some layers of protection in place that I can appeal to should my state start pushing gender-fluid ideology as a norm.

    I did find myself puzzling the question "what do I want my school to teach?" and was having a hard time with it, since the answer, if I'm being honest, is my views on gender and sexuality.
    It helped to reframe the question from "what do I want?" to "what do I expect?" I do not expect my school to teach classical Protestant Biblical views on sex and sexuality - that ship has sailed. I do expect that my child will be taught that sexual identity issues are complicated and that there are disagreements. I also realized that the thing I'm afraid of is that they will be taught that there is one point of view that is unacceptable, and that people who believe what mommy and daddy believe are bad, hateful people. Reframing the question that way I think defines the argument into something that is one I can bring into the public square and honestly stand on. It ties into other issues as well. I need transparency in curriculum and teaching if I am to have confidence that my views are equally respected. I also need the confidence that I have the means to challenge the position of a teacher who is teaching that my views are not allowed in the discussion, and if necessary to demand changes in either curriculum or staffing. It doesn't resolve the fears (because I think fear is a useful characterization word.) but it provides a much stronger place to stand on.

    Final one, I'd like to hear a good discussion (this might be more appropriate for Good Faith) with an Evangelical Christian parent who has had to navigate sending children to school in a culture that has open hostility to their worldview. Maybe Europe, perhaps the Middle East or Indonesia? What are the issues that arise when the authority figures are all teaching "your parents viewpoint is wicked" and you do not necessarily have the means to remove them from that school.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    I completely forgot to comment this when I first listened to this episode, so I came back to say that I’m proud of you both for continuing the “No you won’t this is a podcast” tradition! Jonah can rest easy knowing he left the Remnant in good hands!

    Collapse
  9. Clark Monson

    This was a much better and more nuanced conversation than I was expecting from the description. I thought on the whole it was good. But I do have one objection, not to any of the arguments or principles, per se, but to one of David's favorite rhetorical tools. As he has done many times before, David objected to the notion that to be opposed to the Florida education bill or the various anti-CRT bills in other state legislatures is to be in favor of "grooming" or to be in favor of CRT instruction, respectively. I completely agree with him that it's a dishonest, uncharitable attack. However, I'd like a bit more affirmative discussion from David of what he would like to see instead. Is his response to the public's perception of inappropriate education in Florida, for example, that no action is needed? If so, he should come out and say so. Does he believe inappropriate education in Florida is troubling but that it's not feasible or prudent to remedy it at a state level? Again, come out and say so. Or does he believe that there's another way to approach this that could assuage conservatives' concerns without running afoul of anti-discrimination law or being overbroad? If so, what would that look like? David is a brilliant, very talented, very experienced litigator. I have no doubt that if he believes there's an appropriate legislative solution to the perceived problem, he could come up with suggestions. A broad outline, at minimum.

    And it won't do to say, "well, that's not my job, that's Florida's job." David's a writer and pundit. If the passage of this law is something that should be discussed at a national level--and I believe that's a reasonable argument--it's perfectly fair to say that if he or any other pundit with a legal background is going to extensively criticize it, he should either acknowledge that he doesn't think there's a problem or that there's no legislative solution, or he should provide some constructive feedback for the rest of us to take from it. Otherwise, it becomes very easy to dismiss his criticism.

    If this is something David has discussed elsewhere, I'd love to see it repeated. I wish I had time to listen to AO, but not being a lawyer but otherwise being busy, I'm no longer able to fit it into my schedule. I try to read David's newsletters, but if he's discussed this, I've missed it. If it's out there, I'm sure I'm not the only one who's missed it. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like more input from him on these issues.

    Collapse
  10. Jim S

    So this was the podcast that finally pushed me over the edge to finally subscribe to the Dispatch. I’ve been reading Jonah and David F for many years. Even though I do not share a lot of their politics I do appreciate the approach they have taken here to disagree amiably and have conversations of substance.

    Regarding the ‘blood libel’ discussion here…I think it is a matter of perspective. I am 58 and gay. I’ve been listening to this ‘groomer’ garbage my entire life and when it popped up again you can be sure that my reaction was fury and I’ve been stewing about it ever since. Thank God that there is someone somewhere willing to have an honest conversation minus the sadistic name calling.

    As regards to the law itself I don’t believe it is a substantative attempt to protect children at all. It is designed as the latest poll tested gay related cultural issue that can be used as a wedge to turn out Republican voters. This is about politics and not much else.

    Collapse
    1. B Phillips

      I agree with your analysis. I really don't think there is any serious sex education going on in the K-3rd grade level. The most "egregious" example I've heard of was New Jersey's guideline that wants kids to be able to differentiate between sexual orientation & gender identity by 5th grade. I think there are plenty of adults who could also use that bit of education. That is a far cry from mentioning specific sex acts.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        James Spiller

        I think that there may be instruction that would offend Rauch. For instance, if there was a who transitioned, they might be introduced and described as a woman and respond to questions. It seems to me that a school would be placed in an impossible position if they could not persuade them to leave and that trans teachers would receive significantly more harassment than they already do.

        Collapse
Load More