Merlene Davis of the Lexington Herald-Leader doesn't miss her chance to promote the movie, which was shown this weekend and sponsored by the Central Kentucky Council on Peace and Justice. Here's her description of the movie:
On Saturday, several organizations are hosting the first local screening of "Straightlaced: How Gender’s Got Us All Tied Up," a documentary that explores the pressures teens endure to conform to accepted gender boundaries. That film is dedicated to Hannah, who was one of the 50 young people producers interviewed to gauge the restrictions society puts on teens in defining their masculinity or femininity. [emphasis added]That's Merlene, who is presumably female, although she could apparently have been something else had society decided differently.
The film is about a boy named "Josh," an openly gay student at Lexington, Kentucky's Paul Lawrence Dunbar High School who committed suicide and a fellow student name "Hannah" who was his friend and who later died in a car accident. Josh is described as having a "flamboyant personality," which attracts the negativity of his peers. It's never stated outright, but you get the definite impression that Josh's death is to be laid at the feet of anyone who has a traditional view of human sexuality.
Here is the description of the film on the Kentucky Theatre's website:
The message of the film is one of acceptance of others regardless of their dress, sexual orientation or desire to wear a particular color, said Woloch. That epitomizes what Hannah stood for. “In the movie she said people ask her why she was friends with Josh, and she said, ‘Why not?’” Woloch said. “These are stories of kids who identify as gay, straight, bisexual or whatever,” she said. “It’s about the biases we have and the determinations we make based on nothing. Hers was just acceptance and love. Acceptance for who they are.” [emphasis added]What, exactly, does "acceptance" mean here? Is this, like, some neutral kind of acceptance that just means I'm supposed to recognize and respect others as human beings despite the fact that I think their lifestyle is abnormal and in many cases self-destructive (and in some cases just silly)?
Wait. Self-destructive? How could I say that? That's so insensitive and intolerant. Am I not ashamed of myself for saying this?
Well, actually, no. I know that in modern liberal secular society, which has constantly championing social policies that contribute to the disconnection of people from real cultures and real relationships, we are supposed to have compassion for people we don't know. This is one of the premises behind all the rhetoric about so-called "global culture." Which, by the way, not only doesn't exist, but can't.
I'm sure, if I had known the boy, I would have felt very sorry for him--for a number of reasons. I'm sure his parents too are understandably distraught and grieving. If I knew them, I'm sure I would feel equally sorry for them. But I didn't and I don't.
And he did, after all, kill himself. If there's something more self-destructive than that, I guess I haven't figured out what it is.
So does this "acceptance" simply mean being respectful of someone's humanity, or is it more on the order of I'm supposed to deny the basic principles of the Good the True and the Beautiful because they are right and I'm wrong?
I'd like to think it is the first, but I have the sneaking suspicion that it is really the second. In fact, the evidence for the accuracy of my suspicion is right there in the description. What are the beliefs of traditionally-minded people? They are "the biases we have and the determinations we make based on nothing." In other words, the views of those who think that males are not designed to be masculine and females are not designed to be feminine are to be accepted by those who disagree with them. On the other hand, those who think males are designed to be masculine and females are designed to be feminine are "biases based on nothing" and are to be rejected as unacceptable.
In other words, we use the language of moral neutrality to hide the fact that acceptance only goes one way. If you reject traditionalism, your views should be "accepted," and if you are a traditionalist, your views are not to be accepted, and furthermore you are to be characterized as intolerant in the process. If Group A rejects the views of Group B, then Group A is intolerant. But when Group B rejects the views of Group A, it is actually an exercise in tolerance despite the fact that it is no different in kind than the rejection exercised by Group A.
You agree with me, okay? But I don't have to agree with you. That's how the game works. Are you ready to play?
And what about these"determinations we make"? It doesn't take long to figure out that the people promoting the film want us to think, first, that it is only those evil, biased, intolerant people who, in having the temerity to think that males are males and females are females for a reason, are the only ones who make determinations. But is that true?
What about the "determinations" the promoters of the film make in regard to sexual orientation? These are people, after all, who think that gay people are born that way. I can't think of any belief more determinative that the belief that homosexual are born homosexual.
But, of course, we say that homosexuals are born that way when it suits our politics, and then conveniently ignore or deny it when it doesn't. In fact, as I have said before, it is a strange anomaly characteristic of the modern liberal mindset that it claims that everything, including gender, is culturally constructed and then turns right around and claims that homosexuality is inborn.
And are the determinations of those of us who unaccountably think that boys are born boys and girls are born girls really "based on nothing"? How about, oh, I don't know, ... nature? That, after all, has been the belief of cultures time immemorial. If you don't agree with it, fine. What's your argument against it? You got something more than--dare I say it?--a bias?
According to the promo for the film, which features a bunch of confused teenagers trying to articulate, like, something about gender, ya know, the basic premise is that gender is just as subjective as the colors and the clothes you wear. And, apparently, like your clothes, your gender can be chose and changed at will. In other words, people aren't really born male and female.
Now, put your finger on that page to hold your place and turn back to the earlier chapters of this whole debate over gay rights and read the chapter on how homosexuality is inborn. Whoa! Gender is not inborn, but homosexuality is? How can this be?
It is just one more measure of the crack-up of the modern secular mind that people who can't figure out whether they are male or female should be the first ones to demand recognition for "who they are."
HT: Richard Day