The "Progressive" Left's Inconsistent Standard on Questions of Sexuality

The best case for allowing "transgendered" (broadly defined) persons to use the restrooms of their choice is that their sexuality is not directed towards the persons they will be sharing the bathrooms with. A man who identifies as "female" is probably not aroused by women himself. (Although he may actually covet female sexual organs in a different way -- in that he wants to possess them -- which may cause a different sort of discomfort for actual women he shares a bathroom with.)

That does, I admit, make a certain amount of sense.

But the progressive left is wildly inconsistent on this point

Witness their insistence that gay men be allowed to serve as troopmasters for the Boy Scouts.

Now, if it's the case that someone who is male but female-identifying should be allowed to use women's bathrooms -- on the theory that he is simply not sexually attracted to women -- shouldn't we say that gay men ought not to be allowed to lead Boy Scout troops, because they are, in fact, attracted to males?

In the one case, it's "sexual preference decides; actual biological sexuality means nothing." In the second case, it's "actual biolotical sexuality controls; sexual preference means nothing."

Am I alone in feeling there's a bit of an inconstency here?

I would never be allowed to be the troopmaster for a Girl Scout troop, or whatever you call older Girl Scouts. The reason is obvious-- I'm a straight male. I'm not a pedophile, I'm not particularly attracted to underage girls... but let's be honest, some underage girls are as developed sexually as true adult women, and let's be honest again, no one wants to take that risk with their daughters.

And, speaking personally, I wouldn't want to take that risk with anyone's underage daughter, either. I wouldn't want to cross that line; I woudn't even want to be in that vicinity of that line. The further I am from that line, the better.

Shit happens. I knew a guy -- vaguely -- and not a sex-freak or pervert by any stretch of the imagination. He became a high-school teacher. He was a soccer star, so he coached... the girl's soccer team. And despite the fact that this guy wasn't someone you would have pegged as a sex-offender -- he always did well enough with women of his own age throughout his life -- he did end up having sex with several underage girls on his team.

He wasn't allowed to be a teacher again... for a couple of years. The teacher's union seems to be as latitudinarian on this issue as Major League Baseball is on steroid use. But that's a tangency.

The point is that when an adult is thrown in with underage children/teenagers to whom he is potentially sexually attracted, there is an obvious danger.

Now, many gays are offended by the idea that people don't want gay men leading underage-but-sexually-mature boys on camping trips in the woods. It unfairly brands them as "pedophiles," they claim.

Well, in that case, why shouldn't I -- a straight man -- be allowed to take a bunch of Girl Scouts on a little sleepaway trip, too? Does the fact that I'm being "discriminated" against on this score mean that I, too, am being unfairly branded as a "pedophile," or at least a potential one?

Gays insist that they are statistically no more likely to engage in pedophilia as straight men. Perhaps that's true; although it seems to me that the stats only "prove" this when one begins defining homosexual sex between an adult and a boy as "straight" behavior, on the theory that many male-directed male pedophiles identify as "straight." Well, they may identify as straight, but I have trouble accepting gay sex with a boy as straight sex. It seems, I don't know, homosexual to me-- by definition.

But that, again, is a tangency.

I am willing to accept that gays are no more likely to engage in pedophilia than straights. But I am not willing to accept that they are less likely to do so -- or, to put it another way, that straight men are more likely to engage in pedophilia than gays.

And if it's deemed perfectly safe to allow a gay man to camp in the woods with underage boys, and yet not acceptable at all to allow a straight man to do similarly with underage girls-- what other message can we take from this strange double-standard? Apparently a gay scoutmaster is to be trusted implictly, because of course no gay man has ever had sex with an underage boy.

But a straight man cannot be allowed anywhere near underage girls, because, of course, we are the true pedophiles. We just can't help ourselves.

Not sure what any of this means. Except that the left, as usual, seems to be fond of applying different rules to similar situations depending on the "progressive" outcome they seek, no matter how little sense it might make.

posted by Ace at 11:59 AM

| Access Comments