Troubled Teens

In all of the discussion of LGBT etc. issues with regard to young people (AKA “minors”), I have yet to see a certain issue discussed. And no, I'm not talking about bathrooms and locker rooms, which have been dealt with at exhausting length and which, along with proms and dress codes, have brought public school systems to their knees (so to speak). And I'm not talking about traditional moral issues... or about the age-old nature vs. nurture debate, i.e. the question of whether people are “born that way” or become that way through environmental factors – upbringing, various forms of abuse (physical or emotional, or both), the influence of the media, friends, non-friends, bullies, rock 'n' roll, fashion, what have you. These are all worthy topics, but I can't add anything to what's already been discussed.

I am, however, talking about a political issue – but not about elections or candidates, or their “positions” with respect to the issue, or who they are counting on to vote for them. My concern is with politics on the “micro” level, and the response not of skeptics or of people who are “agin” the whole idea, or of people who would rather not talk about it and who hope the whole thing will go away. I'm talking about the response of what I will call the “well-meaning” community, and specifically of those in authority – which means, in the case of minors, parents and public school personnel, by and large (although I suppose this could be extended to include coaches, teachers, and instructors outside the formal education system).

The problem is not one of acceptance; let's take that as a given. I'm talking about too much acceptance – or acceptance of the wrong kind. And the motivation for this seems to be less purely humanistic than the perennial tendency to categorize, classify, and pigeonhole people in order to simplify life and make it easier for the Regime (however manifested at this level) to deal with and accommodate individuals – to, in effect, apply the rules of identity politics reinforced, as needed, by “psychological testing” and other practices of questionable merit. Another way of putting it is that the minute a certain group of individuals starts to manifest a certain trait or behavior pattern, they are no longer treated as unique individuals but as part of a class (which may be newly-minted for the purpose). They are provided with a ready-made label and earmarked for special treatment on the assumption that sexual orientation or sexual identity is like quick-drying cement – once it solidifies, it can be counted on to stay put, remain stable, and not bother anyone – and that the individuals involved are, once and for all, to be counted as members of a certain group, and never mind the complexities of the human psyche, and especially never mind that the human psyche, in all of its myriad manifestations, is subject to change – sometimes drastic change – particularly in the early years. At that stage of life, everything else is fluid and evolving; why shouldn't this be as well? But that's not good enough for the collectivist/totalitarian mind set, where labeling is paramount and essential to the pursuit of political ends.

For what is identity politics? It's a power game based on the premise that certain traits not only define an individual, but constitute the most important – perhaps the only important – thing about them. If you're black, you're black; nothing can change that, and that will define your class for life – and heaven forbid you should do or say anything that constitutes wandering off the reservation (as witness what happens to “black conservatives”). The situation is likewise if you're handicapped in some way (and pardon me for using what I consider to be a still-useful term). But these are things about which it can realistically be said that a person is “born that way”, or in the case of some handicaps, becomes that way and there is no turning back. But is this true of sexuality – of sexual identity? And, in particular, is it true of the sexuality or sexual identity of minors?

Put it another way. Does it make sense based on what we know about human psychology to jump on some early signs of sexual identity or “preference”, slap a label on the individual, and then expect them to somehow live up to their newfound “identity” -- to conform within the bounds of a certified non-conforming group (those bounds being pre-defined by the Regime)? Again, it's this societal compulsion to pigeonhole people and thus avoid all the messiness and complexity of having to deal with them as unique individuals. A grade-school boy starts playing with dolls or expressing an interest in fashion design. Leave him alone? Not a bit of it. He has to be “encouraged”, and reinforced, and directed along the path that the authorities have decided is his fate – his destiny in life. And if he sticks with it, all is well. But what if, a year or two later, he tosses the dolls into a box and quits drawing dresses, and develops an interest in football, auto racing, and guns? Woe is us! Oh, the humanity! Now he's a “problem”, and no one can quite figure out what to “do” with him (as if there is a compelling need to “do” anything). Or turn it around – football, cars, and guns first, then at some point dolls and fashion take over. Again, woe is us (but not as bad as the former case)!

Apply the same thing to girls. Today's “tomboy” might become next year's prom queen – or again, vice versa. Or – a kid develops a “crush” (another old fashioned term) on someone of the same gender. Is that the same as waving a flag which reads “I'm _______ and proud of it!” And this is just about observable behavior. Do we know what's going on inside the kid's head? We might ask, or they might tell us – but again, is this already set in stone or can it evolve? Do we care? Well, the system cares, because it depends on labels – on classes – on setting one group against another, because only in that way can the system step in and save the day, imposing a kind of deadening peace (AKA “diversity”) upon the populace. I've commented before – as have others – that “diversity”, while appearing to honor individual choices, is really a program to enforce a stifling conformity on another level – conformity to the system, and submission to all of its varied mechanisms for categorizing people. True diversity is not the flesh-and-blood equivalent of the “It's a Small World” ride at Disneyland; it's accepting human nature in its entirety, with all of the complexities and ambiguities that entails. On some level, we are all nonconformists simply because we're individuals – but this is the very thing that society does its best to stamp out.

I suppose that part of the problem is that adults in general have already forgotten (or suppressed) their own childhood and youth – how fluid things can be, and how ambiguous. They have also forgotten how overwhelming “peer pressure” (in whatever direction you like) can be – as well as the impact of fashions (in the broad sense), fancies, and fads. Kids really are a lot like Silly Putty – highly malleable, able to be bent and stretched every which way, and apt to take on impressions from their social environment. The growth process brings with it uncertainties and insecurities; this seems pretty much inevitable. A maturing person is not only a stranger in a strange land, but they are strangers to themselves as well. What they need, above all, is time – and not this bogus instantaneous “understanding” or “support” or advocacy that attempts to force them into a given identity, class, or category – or force them to stay in one that they may have adopted only for a season. And granted, it's a delicate balance. I think the key is to support the individual as an individual, rather than as a member of a class that they may or may not truly belong in, or even be interested in.

It was not that long ago that boys were naturally expected to take up the occupation or trade of their fathers – and that girls were expected to do likewise vis-a-vis their mothers, who were typically homemakers. Biographies are full of stories of young people who “rebelled” against that system; it seems that many interesting people did so, which is probably why they wind up having biographies written about them. And while conformity on that level is pretty much a thing of the past, at least in Western societies, what we are faced with now is a new conformity which is focused (the way the old system never was, or at least not explicitly) on sexual identity. And it's gotten to the point where people not old enough to drive, or vote, are being encouraged to undergo hormonal therapy or even “sex reassignment surgery”. I consider this an egregious form of child abuse. Not only has the labeling process become a major industry (in the political sense), but it is being translated into permanent, irreversible physical alteration – all, of course, with the total “support” and encouragement authorities and of society in general.

And there is no denying that, for many young people, this is precisely what they want, and what they think will solve their problems and make their life better. But again, we have the judgment issue – why trust people of a tender age to make a life-altering decision when we forbid them from making other decisions of equal (or even lesser) import? Why should the first adult “right” granted to children be the right to change their genitalia? It makes no sense.

I predict – and there are precedents for this – that we will eventually see lawsuits by adults who went under the knife (or had drastic hormone treatments, or both) as minors, but who realized later on that they had been exploited. If someone who is already an adult decides that this is the path they want to take, that may be a matter for discussion and debate, but at least the person is acting from a position of legal and, hopefully, psychological maturity. But to impose the same expectations on a person who is immature in pretty much every respect goes way beyond disservice; it's setting them up to be a victim of a political agenda that they have no notion of. Growing up, and life in general, leaves enough scars without offering young people up as sacrifices to a world view that doesn't value their rights and uniqueness as individuals.

It's a Nice Day for a Gay Wedding (Cake)

I swear, if I were king (or president – assuming there's a difference) I'd establish a cabinet-level department devoted to clear thinking. It would be staffed by... well, maybe a logician or two, but certainly not any of this motley crew of self-styled “philosophers” that infests our campuses these days. I think I would round it out with stand-up comics – you know, the serious kind, like George Carlin or Jackie Mason. Or Lenny Bruce. Their job would be to cut through all the cant, fog, smog, and obfuscation that characterizes virtually all political (which also means social and economic) discussion in our time. But... wouldn't a government agency devoted to clear thinking be a contradiction in terms? I think it would, since government is so dependent on deceit, dissimulation, and obfuscation as tools with which to get their way and exploit the hapless citizenry.

In any case, a current example of where clear thinking could be of use, but will never be applied, is Arizona's gyrations with regard to whether businesses have a right to discriminate against some (potential) customers based on religious freedom – i.e. the business owner's religious freedom vs. the customer's supposed freedom to purchase goods and services the same as anyone else. (Note, please, that the former freedom is in the Constitution, whereas the latter is not.)

First, let's clarify what is intended here (since no one else will). The issue in question, basically, is whether a merchant or service provider can refuse to deal with a customer whose behavior (known or assumed) would be considered sinful according to the religion of said merchant or service provider. (This is, of course, contingent on said businessman being a member of a recognized religious group with a coherent moral code. That already narrows it down a bit.)

Right? I mean, isn't that what we're talking about? It's not just a matter of like or dislike, or of taste. Now – LGBT customers are low-hanging fruit, if you will (and I really do apologize for that metaphor), since the minute they walk in the door you can assume they are engaged, on a regular basis, in certain, um... “activities” that a traditional religious code would consider sinful, even if they are no longer illegal. (I say “traditional” because this is no longer the case with main-line Protestantism, liberal Catholicism, or most of Judaism, or just about anyone else. The Moslems seem to be holding the fort so far.) But this is an assumption, right? I mean – who's going to ask even the most blatantly gay couple whether they actually “do it”? They might be living under one roof in a state of total chastity, for all I know.

But what about everyone else? Do I have to come up with a questionnaire to administer to everyone who comes in the door? I mean... how about a couple “living in sin”, as they used to say? Are we to deny them a wedding cake? At least a wedding would make them into honest people. Or, what about an adulterer? What if a known mobster, suspected of being involved in any number of cement-bootie operations, walks into your bakery and orders a box of cannoli? What about a sharp businessman, or an evil banker or loan shark? What about a politician? Where does one draw the line? I mean... all they're talking about with this bill is one of the ten commandments. What about the other nine? The LGBT community could claim that they're being picked on – and they would be right, in a way.

That's the logic (or illogic) of the situation. But there's another aspect, at least as important. Any libertarian worth his (or her) salt would say that a private businessman has a perfect right to do business, or refuse to do business, with anyone he pleases – for any reason, or for no reason. Call it “discrimination” if you like, call it arbitrary, but the point is that it's a private business, and is thus – or ought to be – sacrosanct and free from government interference, even with the best intentions. The government itself, on the other hand – meaning its agencies and employees – have no such right, since they are supposed to serve the entire citizenry (and not just the ones who voted for the winner, note). And by extension, any organization that does business with the government, or receives any sort of preferential treatment or subsidy, likewise does not have that right. So a defense contractor would be forbidden to discriminate, but the pizza parlor down the street would not (unless they had a standing order to deliver ten thick 'n' crusties to the local recruiting station every Friday night).

See what I'm getting at? “Private” means private, period. So with that in mind, the governor of Arizona should reject (not veto, just ignore) this bill because – horrors! -- it doesn't go far enough. The problem with that, of course, is her legal team would advise her that any bill that expands the rights of private entrepreneurs to the point of, say, the rights they all had up until the last few decades, would be automatically nullified by any number of existing federal laws, case law, etc. And they would be correct, since decisions of that sort were taken out of the hands of business people long ago.

But what does this all mean? Should religious beliefs, or beliefs of any sort, or mere convictions, prejudices, distastes, etc. all be confined to the private sphere and disallowed in the marketplace? Does the government, in effect, own the marketplace even if it doesn't always operate it? We see in this case, more clearly than in most, how the assertion of one right, or set of rights, on the part of one party invariably means a diminution of a right, or set of rights, for someone else – even if those rights are not considered “equal” in merit by societal consensus or by law. My free speech may mean you don't have a right to perfect peace and quiet, or the serenity of unquestioned opinions. My freedom of religion may mean my rosaries on your ovaries – not in the literal sense but by way of prayer. And so on. The premise has always been that human rights, or civil rights, are morally superior to more parochial, self-centered, bigoted interests, but this is a premise in itself – humanistic enough, but a premise nonetheless, that is typically implemented based on political considerations. The very definition of “rights” -- most of which were unheard of until recently -- is a political process. In fact, the term has been abused to such an extent that we may have find another, just to bring meaning back into the discussion. The main problem is that human rights had, at one time, a moral and ethical basis, whereas these days it's all been reduced to politics. But, a lot of the traditional morally- and ethically-based rights are still hanging around, and are forced to duke it out on a daily basis with the newly-discovered politically-based rights. To give just one example, “freedom of speech”, a presumed basic human right, has run up against laws prohibiting “hate speech”, which is a purely political construct. Et cetera.

So if we have a “wall of separation between church and state”, it also appears that we have a wall, likewise, between church and the marketplace, i.e. business. And anyone of any conviction who chooses to seek his fortune in the marketplace must leave his “personal” (even if shared by millions of others) beliefs behind. This is the plain intent of the law as it is currently applied. The dilemma for a person of faith is this: Do they sin by consenting to this arrangement? It's one thing to pay taxes to a government that does immoral things, because behind every tax form lurks the point of a gun. Filing one's taxes is not voluntary; it's voluntary – or else. Or – turn the problem around and ask what happens when a provider of goods and services is perceived as doing sinful, immoral, or just plain wrong things. (Think of Chick-Fil-A. Think of Dow Chemical of old. Think of all the boycotts you've ever heard of, or participated in.) People certainly have a right to not patronize that business. But the business does not have an equal, or reciprocal, right to “boycott” or refuse to serve a subset of customers. All I'm trying to establish is that it's a matter of politics, not principle.

We pride ourselves in that we honor, most of the time, the concepts of free trade and free association, among others. Add freedom of thought, of which freedom of religion is a subset, into the mix. Then see what happens when the freedoms of thought and of association collide with free trade. This is the problem Arizona and a number of other states are dealing with at present, and I think we can expect, in the long run, that anything remotely resembling states' rights in these cases will be crushed into fine power by the federal courts – or by state courts in anticipation of the federal courts. The pity is that questions like this in our time are not referred to the Constitution or to any venerable moral or ethical code, but to politics – which is to say, to rule by the mob and by emotion.

An added observation – what if the Arizona bill were to be passed, signed into law, and passed scrutiny by the judiciary all the way to, and including, the Supreme Court? I mean, I know this could never happen, but “what if?” Let's say a given business decided to assert itself in some way, against one or more “minorities”. Would they regret their decision? It depends. They would, of course, lose some potential customers automatically... others would quit doing business there out of solidarity... others wouldn't start doing business there for the same reason... etc. But on the other hand, there would be people who would start or keep doing business there out of solidarity with the businessman. So it would be a matter of demographics and, yes, politics – and how strongly people felt about the issue. I've never participated in a boycott, but I have redirected my business when I felt that a given merchant or service provider was “doing the right thing”, and that may have been just because they were locally owned and operated, or small, or independent, or something. But it's a complex world out there, and if you look for a reason to not do businesses somewhere, you'll usually find it. Even the coolest of the cool businesses, like – oh, I don't know – Ben and Jerry's or something, probably have some fatal flaw. So on any given day I'm going to opt for price and convenience and quality, and leave the politics up to someone else. (Call me apathetic, go ahead.)

On the other side of the coin is the fate of the consumer. Would a “freedom of association for businesses”, or FAB (!), bill result in minority members collapsing in the street from hunger or lack of clothing and shelter? Of course not. The beauty of American free enterprise – what's left of it – is that any need is going to be filled in short order, as long as it's up to the private sector and not government. To begin with, the majority of places of business would, almost certainly, ignore their new-found freedom to discriminate and continue to serve all comers. But besides that, new businesses would spring up to fill the gap, catering to whatever niche market had developed. And in fact, those businesses would probably attract non-niche customers as well. I've wandered into plenty of places in all innocence, only to find that I didn't quite fit the demographic they were aiming at. (And I'm not talking about bars; just thought I'd throw that in.) But I was always greeted with courtesy, and more often than not I became a customer – at least on that one occasion. So I imagine that our (also quite recent) infatuation with “diversity” would more than make up for any ill effects of letting businesses do as they please. Of course, the only way to find out for sure is to try it, and that's not gonna happen.