Queer Factors

The real problem are the straight people.

By
118

Today’s episode of The Remnant features James Kirchick, the prolific pundit and author of Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington. Recently, James published an essay in Liberties that examined how gay culture has changed in American life since the 1980s. But despite the success of the gay rights movement, LGBTQ issues remain prominent in the culture war. Why is this the case? Where do we go from here? And how would Jonah’s grandpa feel about this episode?

Show Notes:
—Watch this episode on YouTube

By
Comments (118)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    PaulH

    With regard to annoying labels, the one I dislike the most is White -- with a capital W -- the only people who use that are the progressive left (in order to demean whites) and the alt-right (because they support white supremacy). No normal person thinks of themselves as White.

    Collapse
  2. Lori Meldrum

    This was a really good conversation. I did not expect it to be as engrossing as it was. It wasn’t just that I agreed with the points made, it was also that they were so well made.

    Collapse
  3. Bigdonmck

    Concerning Ukraine. They were ill prepared for this Russian invasion.The average soldier is 43. They have been fighting this war for 2 years and STILL don't have conscription to bolster troop numbers.
    The Ukraine is corrupt as all hell. I understand that the U.S. has not had to commit troops and that 95% of the money spent on Ukraine is spent stateside. That money could be spent on education, crime prevention, border security, and Oreo production instead.
    It gets tiring when a country fails to prepare itself for defense and EXPECT other countries to cover their hindquarters.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Richard Maxton

      "Concerning Ukraine. They were ill prepared for this Russian invasion.The average soldier is 43. They have been fighting this war for 2 years and STILL don't have conscription to bolster troop numbers."

      --I'd argue the entire world was ill-prepared for Russia invading, living as we have been in the post Cold War era of "US as the sole superpower". As for average soldier age and conscription, the US average is nearing 30 and only the Marines and Air Force, among the branches of our military are currently meeting recruiting goals.

      I imagine the reinstatement of a Draft wouldn't go over well here either, whether we were at war or not.

      It probably also gets tiring for other countries to have one of if not the strongest country in the world, from a military POV promise to help in defense (and with something as easy as money which - as you even concede - doesn't even really leave stateside) and then bail when it takes more than a few months of effort and attention.

      Collapse
      1. Bigdonmck

        A lucid and great response. I just happen to disagree with most of it. But that's OK. Civil disagreements are healthy. Just be civil.
        If the world was ill prepared, then they were blind. Russia took Crimea in 2014. And yet Ukraine did nothing to prevent it from happening again. Even Europe issued a fiat that said all EU members should up their defense spending to 2% of GDP. But it had no teeth and only Greece, I believe, hit the 2% mark.
        As for the U.S. not reaching recruitment goals, I agree. As Dean Wormer from Animal House said, "being fat, lazy and stupid is no way to go through life". But that's what we are are stuck with. Our youth just doesn't measure up. But age 30 is a whole lot better than 43. I do agree a draft would go over like a lead balloon.
        The Ukraine is not a member of NATO, not do we have a mutual defense agreement with them. This a European problem. Let them pony up. But once Russia attacks a NATO country we should fulfill our obligations in a heartbeat. Money is NOT easy, especially in the amounts proposed. That kind of money could and should be spent on domestic problems. But not on a corrupt country where the voters finally gave up trying to elect a decent politician and elected a comedian instead.
        Just because you are an ally doesn't mean the U.S. should drop tens of billions on you for a stalemate, especially when you are terribly corrupt and took no measures to cover your own butt. Definitely an opinion in the minority, but that's my take. Have a good one.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Richard Maxton

          "If the world was ill prepared, then they were blind. Russia took Crimea in 2014. "

          --Blind or naive. You'll get no argument from me here. If I recall correctly, Europe was still looking to Russia for its natural gas needs even after this. And it's not like the fools in charge of US foreign policy at the time were doing anything useful. I'm sure they were looking to avoid the inevitable "I guess we should have paid attention when the 80s called" snark (which would have been well-deserved).

          Of course, I can offer no opposition to the Ukraine not in NATO bit, but we did have the Budapest Memorandum agreement with them. In particular, one part of the agreement is: "Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used"." Seems like we've fallen down on the job here. Which brings me back to the last point I made in my previous post: if the US isn't hold to hold up its end of the bargain on these kinds of agreements, then we're going to make the job of getting agreements much harder. And with nuclear nonproliferation, that's a BIG deal (and this is why I think it's so important for the Executive to stop with JCPOA-type stuff and actually get Treaties done - these half measures aren't worth the paper they're printed on come a new administration).

          I appreciate you sharing your POV and agree there's nothing wrong with civil disagreement.

          Collapse
          1. Bigdonmck

            Great and civil response.
            You quoted that section on the Security Council correctly. Ukraine needs to contact the U.N. Security Council. And of course that request would be vetoed by Russia.
            I checked Wikipedia for further info on this Budapest Memorandum. It appears that that U.S. State Department lawyers went to great lengths to change the language from "security guarantees" to "security assurances". In other words, The Budapest Memorandum is a very weak document. That supports your view on half measures vs. treaties.
            So is the U.S. holding up its share of the bargain? I believe so. The Memo said Ukraine had to contact the Security Council, not The U.S. The U.S. has only assurances...not guarantees to protect Ukraine. A raw deal to be sure. But the State Department lawyers appeared to want this Memo to be weak as possible from the start.
            That's just one guy's view. I respect other views. And thanks for your kind response on my Comment about the Cubs and their fans in that other article.

            Collapse
  4. Laura Zaner

    Thank you so much for this engaging and important conversation with James. As the mother of a gay son, I am also worried about the backlash from the extremist in the LGBTQI++ community. I remember when my son, now 33, first came out, at age 14, I only cried because I thought he would not be able to be married, be a father, and live a life where he would be fully accepted as the wonderful young man he is .. and then gay marriage was legalized, and I was so happy for him and for all the gays and lesbians who wanted the status of the rest of us. Now, I fear this culture war brought on by the left wing extremists and the trans activists threaten his status and happiness. Now me and my other grown children tease him for being a “regular old gay.” Some antidotes as to why: I had a conversation with my twin grandsons who are in the 8th grade asking at the time asking if they had girlfriends. Their answer: no all the girls in our class are either trans or lesbians — all! Just this past weekend I had a friend of my daughter visiting me along with her straight boyfriend, yet she described herself as queer and that’s not the first time straight young girls have said this to me. Last note: the girls gay group here in Philadelphia were advertising a mixer and there were so many labels on the announcement from lesbian to trans to nonbinary to this and that I had to look some of them up! I tell my kids we older generation had a word for poly too — we called them cheaters or adulterers. And if I see one more announcement that a transgender man is named “woman of the year,” I’m going to go nuts. Sorry for the long post, this is an issue that really worries me despite my being a libertarian and believing that adults should be free to live as they choose. Thank you for the dispatch, the remnant and for the conversation with james. I plan to subscribe to his Substack and read his book.

    Collapse
    1. Mary Stine

      8th grade has not been improved by social media. The pressure on girls and young women reached a boiling point a few years ago and the whole trans/nonbinary thing is likely a response to that. If one is not ready to accept bodily changes and the attentions of men and boys, hiding behind an unattractive facade is one option. Twenty or thirty years ago that would have been hiding behind baggy, loose, barely gendered clothing or Goth clothing and lots of dark makeup. lt's a lot easier to be unattractive than to have to keep saying no or "leave me alone". Just let the clothes do the talking.
      Then there's the possibility that the mean girls, especially the Christian Evangelical variety, have bullied
      other normal girls into believing they are too fat or unattractive or just not girly enough to be "real women". There was a time not that long ago when "tomboys" were just that..active girls who didn't care much about being frilly and girly. Most of them went on to lead normal lives including motherhood, but that was long before social media began it's destruction of tolerance and kindness.

      Collapse
  5. Pohl

    I agree with many things the guest said, largely things emanating from his conservatism. If only I could pretend Jonah didn’t sound so unconservative on gay marriage, though. And he talks about his dad like people who apologize for grandpa using the N-word. “Old-school” notions about “the gays”? Yeah, “he was just that kinda guy.” But the comments seem to be more liberal than these actual gay-marriage proponents, so I imagine my opposition will go over like a lead balloon. Imagine the standard natural-law argument about it here, which the archives contain. Popularity and the lack of extreme consequences predicted by some (not me) such as marrying your VW are not arguments for something’s rightness, just for some kind of modus vivendi, which is a conservative notion. Civil union was a more defensible position. Jonah predictably slipped down that slope, though. I miss pre-1998 NR sometimes.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Phil H

      Civil unions, recognizing the fundamental difference between marriage between a man and a woman, and a union between 2 men or 2 women, is eminently defensible. The issue seems to be that same-sex couples want to be the same as married (opposite-sex) couples without actually *being* the same as married (opposite-sex) couples.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Witt Case

        Would civil unions have identical benefits, rights, privileges etc to marriage? If not it’s not equal to it.

        And the idea of excluding couples from marriage and creating a different union is exclusionary by itself.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Phil H

          We exclude couples from marriage all the time, even today. We exclude couples where one (or both) are underage or do not consent to the marriage, or where the partners are closely related, or where one partner is already married to someone else.

          Same-sex couples are inherently different from opposite-sex couples. Specifically, a same-sex couple can never, even if both partners are healthy and fertile, can procreate, that is, between themselves alone. And a same-sex couple raising a child can never give that child, both a mother and a father. That is how marriage has always been understood and is itself sufficient reason to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

          A same-sex couple is a different thing, even if it fulfills some of the things a marriage does. That's not a knock on the same-sex couple, any more than not being able to perform as a star athlete or musicians is a knock on anyone. It just is.

          Collapse
      2. Pohl

        It’s spilt milk now, so you can add “eminently” if you like. I just don’t see the point in elevating any relationship outside marriage. If we want to extend some legal and tax benefits to a brother and sister raising their orphaned nephews, two widows and their mites living together, twenty-something BFF roomies, or anyone else, we don’t need to dress up the arrangements in some pseudo-marriage garb by calling them “civil unions.” Even the bien-pensants couldn’t be bothered with that New Coke for long.

        Collapse
    2. PROMETHEUS

      Why is "civil union" necessary?

      How would you or anybody gain by delegating gay people to a second class citizenship?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Phil H

        Why do civil unions "delegate" (I think you mean "relegate") gay people to second-class citizenship. Their unions are fundamentally different than an opposite sex union.

        Are you arguing that being gay itself is second class? that's where your statement leads.

        Collapse
      2. Pohl

        I didn’t say I agreed with civil unions. I also reject the idea that traditional marriage means second-class citizenship for the non-married in general. It fundamentally is not something that admits of expansion. Marriage is also not a country club that minorities must fight to get into.

        Collapse
  6. Kmsinatra

    Always enjoy conversations with James!

    Collapse
  7. CCA

    I really like guests who answer questions directly and explain their positions with clarity. That's one thing that made this an easy and enjoyable listen.

    Collapse
  8. Frederickwf

    Fact check, FWIW: Foucault I do think started out as a post-liberal, but he later changed his mind and ended up as a liberal. Late Foucault is fascinating; he’s a much more nuanced thinker in that period than people give him credit for.

    Collapse
  9. Payette

    This was a thoroughly enjoyable discussion! Thanks to both of you, Jonah and Jamie!

    Collapse
  10. BPhillips

    I wish if the Dispatch crew wants to keep discussing trans issues they would bring someone on with at least a bit of knowledge about the topic - this wasn't it. How about a university-based endocrinologist & a psychologist to interview & discuss some actual facts instead of this. I heard a fair amount of either "that didn't happen" stories (Jonah's friend's kid saying the teacher told a 7 year old they were questioning their own sexuality??) or just nutpicking (apparently Jamie has a lot of people telling him tomboys are trans??).
    Some of this conversation was interesting, but the trans parts were kind of silly.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Kmregan7

      I agree- I think a lot of people truly believe that a seven year old tells their parents “I’m a girl/boy!” And then that child goes to their doctor who immediately subscribes puberty blockers or, if they’re older, has sex reassignment surgery right away. This is not the case. And the people who need to figure this out- that treatment methods will or will not work/are the best or not, etc. are the experts in that field. That’s how science and medicine work.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Patrick

      To what do you attribute the rise in kids identifying as trans? I agree with the guest that it is probably the social contagion factor and adults promoting it as an option. 10 years ago, I think 99% of the currently trans kids would have stayed with their biological sex and eventually just come out as gay or lesbian.

      I’m pretty dubious that there’s been such a huge change in the actual chemical makeup of our children in just the past few years.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Kmregan7

        I think a lot of it is that there is less fear and persecution today than in the past, and because of that there’s both a growing number of people coming out, and of course a subsequent backlash, and then, in reaction to the backlash even more people ‘coming out’

        Collapse
      2. PROMETHEUS

        The change is that there is less fear and persecution now, so the trans kids feel are free to be themselves.

        The numbers haven''t changed.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Patrick

          So you think a lot of the gay kids back in the day were actually trans? That seems way more unlikely than the reverse, which is a lot of today’s trans kids are just gay.

          Collapse
          1. PROMETHEUS

            No.
            In the past, say 25 years ago, trans kids DID not feel safe to say what they felt, or they were confused as to what they could call it. They did not call themselves trans, just gay.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Witt Case

            They’re two different demographics. And I’m afraid the hyper focus on the media has on the issue of trans kids makes it’s out to be larger than it is.

            “Over 1.6 million adults (ages 18 and older) and youth (ages 13 to 17) identify as transgender in the United States, or 0.6% of those ages 13 and older.
            Among U.S. adults, 0.5% (about 1.3 million adults) identify as transgender. Among youth ages 13 to 17 in the U.S., 1.4% (about 300,000 youth) identify as transgender.”

            https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/trans-adults-united-states/

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Witt Case

          Beat me to it. More awareness as well. We see more people out, not hiding it anymore.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Patrick

            I wonder what sexual identity kids are repressing today for fear of persecution. I’m sure they’ll come up with something.

            Collapse
Load More