Girl Scouts, Faux-Courage, and Leonard Pitts
Leonard Pitts is out in orbit — I mean, over the moon — over the CEO of the Girl Scouts of Western Washington’s refusal of a $100,000 donation to the Girl Scouts that stipulated the money could not be used to support “transgender girls.”
Just to be clear in our increasingly cloudy culture, “transgender girls” are actual boys.
Pitts feels “indebted to [CEO Megan Ferland] for her…inspiring moral courage.” This act of “moral courage” will likely be celebrated by lesbian Krista Kokjohn-Poehler who is the “Chief Girl Experience Officer” (yes, that’s really her title) of the Girl Scouts of America.
Even the concept of courage has been perverted to serve perversion and confusion.
A courageous act entails at least the possibility of danger or suffering. It takes no courage to be carried along downstream in our deviance-swirling torrential current.
Hollywood and the liberal mainstream press worship at the feet of every Tom, Dick, or Caitlyn who flounces about announcing their strange sexual proclivities. Even formerly conservative press outlets are filled with pundits who are ensconced firmly in the malodorous maws of “progressive” sexuality dogma. Ferland’s decision to reject the donation was cost-free. She may have lost the donation, but I can already hear the clink, clink of coins flooding the Western Washington GSA’s coffers right now from LGBTQQIAAP activists.
Imagine, however, if Ferland had accepted the donation with the stipulation that the Western Washington Girl Scouts remain single sex. And now imagine that some LGBT activists whose jackboots the press licks got wind of the story. That, my friends, would be a very dangerous situation for Ferland.
Pitts waxes comical, saying that the Girl Scouts “have made [inclusivity] part of their DNA.” So, in Pitts’ world, inclusivity is part of their DNA, but actual DNA is not part of their DNA. Girls who think being a girl is an objective, immutable human condition that deserves respect need not apply to the Girl Scouts.
But I’m confused. I thought genetic (and therefore ontological) immutability was the central justification for the normalization of homosexuality?
According to “progressives,” homosexuality—for which there is zero evidence of genetic causation—is immutable, but sex—which is proven to be genetically determined—is mutable and can be changed via a new wardrobe, a few (or many) surgical snips, oh, and compulsory participation of the entire culture in an elaborate performance piece of subversive anti-art—a toxic retelling of the “Emperor’s New Clothes.” (Now there’s a story that should be taught in more schools: It warns of the danger of both pride and collective denial of reality.)
The Left has created a set of assumptions to justify the obliteration of the objective categories of male and female or to compel society to subordinate them to desire. “Progressives” have socially constructed a new categorical term, “gender identity,” to impute ontological and moral weight to what is, in reality, the aggregate of disordered thoughts and desires. In order to obliterate the meaning and importance of the objective categories of male and female, the Left had to construct an opposing set of ideas and then impose it on society through a host of fallacious arguments, social intimidation, and political chicanery.
Pitts trots out the poor, bedraggled race comparison, which has become the go-to analogy for “progressive” sexuality causes. Want to normalize homosexuality (i.e., homoerotic feelings and activity)? Just compare it to biologically-determined race. Want to normalize the desire to deny biologically-determined sex? Just compare it to biologically-determined race—which can never be denied because it’s, well, biologically determined, you know, in the DNA.
The often-confused Left can’t seem to distinguish between objectively constituted conditions and conditions constituted by subjective feelings and volitional acts. The often-confused Left can’t seem to distinguish between conditions that have no moral implications because they’re intrinsically unrelated to volitional acts—like race, sex, and nation of origin—and conditions that are open to moral assessment because they’re constituted by subjective feelings and volitional acts—like polyamory, consensual adult incestuous love, homosexuality, and gender confusion.
What to do, what to do with the manifold incoherencies that emerge from the Left’s assumptions concocted to render desire preeminent over all other social and moral considerations? Be courageous.
What takes real courage (i.e., a willingness to suffer in the service of truth) is to say that the categories of male and female are objective, immutable, and good and that the term “gender identity” is a social construct invented to promote confusion as truth and elevate desire over reality.
What gender-confused children and adults need and deserve is genuine love, which is inseparable from truth. They need affection, community, and consistent affirmation of the good of their sex. It serves neither love nor truth to facilitate confusion.
Pitts cunningly appeals to equality by suggesting that opposition to gender-confused people using opposite-sex restrooms is tantamount to “segregating them…behind barbed wire of social rejection.” A commitment to equality demands that society treat like things alike. It does not demand that society treat different things as if they were the same.
Bruce Jenner did not transform into a woman—as Pitts falsely claimed he did—and boys can never be girls. Such a truth is written even more firmly into the DNA of humans than inclusivity is written into the DNA of the former Girl Scouts of America.
Top 6 on BarbWire.com