We didn’t really mean we’re coming for your kids
Over the weekend, a short video circulated widely on social media of an unidentified person at a New York City march during Pride festivities saying, “We’re coming for your children.”
In the 21-second clip, circulated by a right-wing web streamer channel, dozens of people march in the streets and are clearly heard chanting, “We’re here, we’re queer, we’re not going shopping.” But one voice that is louder than the crowd — it’s not clear whose, or whether the speaker was a member of the LGBTQ community — is heard saying at least twice, “We’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children.”
To conservative pundits, activists and lawmakers, the video confirmed the allegations they’ve levied in recent years that the LGBTQ community is “grooming” children.
But to Brian Griffin, the original organizer of the NYC Drag March, if that’s the worst they heard, it’s only because he wasn’t there this year.
Griffin said he chanted obscene things in the past, like “Kill, kill, kill, we’re coming to kill the mayor,” and joked about pubic hair and sex toys during marches. People at the Drag March regularly sing “God is a lesbian.”
“It’s all just words,” Griffin said. “It’s all presented to fulfill their worst stereotypes of us.”
Just some lighthearted humor, folks. Nothing to get upset about. Sort of like if some fun-loving neo-Nazis started chanting about killing black people or gay people – as a joke, you know. Ha ha – as my brother used to say when we were kids, so funny I forgot to laugh.
In other words, don’t joke about things of that nature. And it’s especially unfunny to do it when you actually are engaged in putting gay porn in school libraries, or convincing school authorities to transition kids in school without telling their parents. Because if you – or, to be fair, your more extreme activist wing – are actually doing those things, no one will believe you are joking about this.
They’re enjoying being very in-your-face about flaunting their disdain for the culture and mores of normal people. In-Yo’-FACE. (And they’re enjoying the attention, too.)
Ohhh, they’re joking. At a certain level, yeah. Like, dig it.
But at a different level, they’re *not* joking. Cults are forever yearning to gain true-believing recruits, and I see no reason to fancy that this cult is different.
I am *so* tired of all this horse sh!t. An awful lot of us normals are . . . there are those who are willing to frankly say out loud that they are, and there are those who are scared sh!tless to say they are. But they are. And all we good guys can do is tolerate it.
they are waging war on children from the commanding heights of government agencies and medical associations and media, and corporate suites from imbev to budweiser,
Um, no. They’re not joking.
(Or rather, if one really wishes to humor them, they’re joking about joking….)
OTOH, it may have dawned on them that they just may have gone a bit too far.
Well, good for them.
They’re still a public menace…(just like the political party that encourages and promotes them and their madness….)
“Just joking”, continued:
“250 Hollywood Celebrities Sign Letter Demanding Big Tech Censor Anyone Who Opposes Trans Surgeries On Kids”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/250-hollywood-celebrities-sign-letter-demanding-big-tech-censor-anyone-who-opposes-trans
It would appear that destroying kids’ lives along with the lives of their families—en route to ripping society to shreds—is one of the most meaningful things they’ve ever done…or could ever conceive of doing…
This is a slightly different version of neo’s topic, but I didn’t like it decades ago when comics on the left went very political. Folks like Al Franken and Jon Stewart.
They would be hailed as very politically astute, but if they got called out for something politically outrageous the retort was always, “Well, I was just joking.”
Less often they would do a comedy routine that wasn’t very funny and then the excuse would be that this is serious political commentary.
In light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Counterman v, Colorado, is “we are coming for your kids” a “true threat”? I’m having trouble truly understanding what the Justices meant in the majority opinion, but apparently “what a reasonable person” would think is not the appropriate test.
Instead, Justice Kagan writing for the majority said the proper test is reckless disregard by the person making the statement that it might be perceived as a threat: “The State must show that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence.”
So using Justice Kagan’s test, the statement “we are coming for your kids” is not a threat. Never mind that a “reasonable person” would disagree; the person(s) saying the words neither saw them as a threat nor expected others would, so they’re not a threat. So why aren’t you laughing?
TommyJay – The old “clown nose on, clown nose off” routine. I think that’s just one of the reason that so many on the left believe things that are so obviously wacky. They haven’t actually heard good arguments on the issues for years.
“…so they’re not a threat.”
Unfortunately, every bit as much of a threat as BBB.
As the Inflation Reduction Act.
As “fundamentally transform America”.
Every single bit as much.
I think they are getting bold and in the open having government and Democrats Propaganda Ministry on their side.
… if they got called out for something politically outrageous the retort was always, “Well, I was just joking.”…
AKA, the ‘clown nose on, clown nose off’ routine.
Edit: Bauxite beat me to it. Too bad it still seems to work.
I remember, post 9/11, a lot of discussion about “moderate Muslims” and what their obligation was, if any, to make it clear that fanatics and terrorists are not what Islam is about and are not “real” Muslims, etc.
I wonder if, perhaps, now might be a good time for the “moderate” Ls, Gs and Bs to publicly distance themselves from the fanatic Qs and Ts?
I think another approach on the part of the Alphabet People to public disapproval of transgenderism is to invite the straight majority to feel sorry for people who were “genderfluid” (or whatever term you prefer for the condition) back in the bad old 1960s when cross-dressing etc. was illegal and trans people could lose their jobs or marriages if they were caught or came out. Some of Neo’s commenters have spoken here of their own experiences of being trans back when it was socially unacceptable.
I’m raising the question of tolerance here because I know in my gut what backlash feels like– I’m much less tolerant of transgenderism than I was 5 years ago, largely because of the in-your-face “joking” and other behavior of the present-day activists. Now, just in time for the end of Pride Month, PBS has posted a streaming video on its American Experience website. Titled “Casa Susanna,” it’s about a hotel of sorts in the Catskills that served as a place where cross-dressing men could wear women’s clothing and makeup to their hearts’ content, as well as performing on stage in the barn next door to the main house. The film features three people in their 70s and early 80s reminiscing about the “Casa”– one is a man who left Australia for the United States in the ’60s because he couldn’t stop his attachment to cross-dressing; the second is a biological man from Iowa who eventually transitioned to a woman and is now married to a lesbian; the third is the biological female daughter of a man who was a frequent visitor to the “Casa” and took out his resentment of his birth sex on her.
I found the film uneven in quality as well as raising more questions than it answers. It glosses over the differences between transgenderism and what DSM-5 calls transvestic fetishism as well as the differences between transgenderism and simply being gay. Harry Benjamin’s name comes up partway through the film as the go-to endocrinologist in NYC for people wanting to transition.
Another aspect of the film that struck me is the amount of attention it gives to the godawful clothing, makeup, and hair styles of the 1960s that cross-dressing men
couldn’t get enough of. There are a lot of photographs of men at the “Casa” wearing the “big hair” wigs of the period along with fire-engine red lipstick, pancake makeup, and the obligatory three-inch stiletto heels as well as dresses and Mae West-type negligees. I can understand why contemporary feminists often remark that transwomen seem drawn to the most superficial aspects of the female gender role. I was startled, too, by the sheer unattractiveness (I’m trying to be tactful here) of the great majority of these men. Apart from Christine Jorgensen, who makes a cameo appearance early in the film, very few of the guests at the “Casa” could pass as women, let alone as attractive women.
On the whole, I think the film works best as a historical retrospective rather than an apologia for transgenderism– although I don’t doubt that that is its primary intent. It’s about an hour and a half long, though you don’t have to watch the full length of it to get the flavor of it. I’d be interested in other readers’ reactions to it, particularly from the older trans people who have commented here.
You can watch “Casa Susanna” here:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/
If there really was a “gay gene” like it was claimed in the 1990s, THEN. this could be laughable.
And if there were, then all the “gay marriage” crusade and gloating would be laughable, too.
But the Truth is that while human sexuality must have genetic components, there remain mysterious social-emotional causes, also in play.
Neo, I think you framed the issue perfectly by your concluding juxtaposition. When you opposition tells you what they really believe, combined by their actions, we shall know them. And to know them is not at all to love them. Quite the contrary.
Just a general comment on Pride activities. I can remember when I would brag about my bedroom activities and prowess. I didn’t actually HAVE bedroom activities and prowess at the time, but I sure bragged about them. Eventually I grew out of that. It kind of says something that they haven’t grown out of that.
mikeski @ 5:50: would now be a good time for the “moderates” to publicly disavow the fringe? Yes, I think the hour is late and the need is great. But will they?
IMHO unlikely. Because the incentives point the other way. If they disavow the fringe, the fringe will do what fringes do: get crazy and vicious and personal on them. That hurts. Whereas if they do nothing, the “normies” will not punish them. Probably. The normalcy of the normies, their civility and patience, works against the moderates’ calculation of the cost. Someday (soon?) the normies may (will?) go medieval. Shocking! Unprecedented! And too late the calculus will be re-set.
If I spent the entire month of June telling children how much I enjoy heterosexual sex, that would be weird and perverted. And yet…
PA + Cat: I saw the Casa Susanna last night on PBS, too. It was more of curiosity piece, than an “American Masters” segment. “American Masters” used to be about great inventors, politicians, artists or historic events. Now it is random people of not much consequence.
The old-time crossdressers of the 50’s and 60’s look like Jack Lemmon in “Some Like It Hot”. Very unattractive and campy. But if it made these men happy, good for them. Some had very understanding wives and many were in fact straight. So the show seemed to be about straight men’s fetish for women’s clothes, lipstick and heels. Not sure how that fits into Pride Month. I couldn’t understand the historic value of this film. Other than as a curiosity.
The man from Australia seemed the most wistful and nostalgic and most affected by the Casa Susannah. But “American Masters” has become completely woke. It used to be a great show.
The Newspaper Of Record strikes again . . .
Historians Now Claim Hitler Was Just Kidding When He Chanted ‘We’re Coming For The Jews’
https://babylonbee.com/news/historians-now-agree-that-hitler-was-just-kidding-when-he-chanted-were-coming-for-the-jews
Robert–
I remember the old American Masters program too; I particularly enjoyed the episodes on Ansel Adams, Rod Serling, and Mark Rothko. It was after the Rothko episode that the show went downhill– I haven’t watched it in over a year.
The main reason why I found the ’60s cross-dressers’ enthusiasm for female dress and makeup puzzling is that I have vivid memories of my mother, my aunts on both sides of the family, and two older female cousins bellyaching about the physical discomfort as well as the high maintenance costs of those ’60s women’s fashions. Given that a lot of women at that time resented girdles, uncomfortable shoes, and the short lifespan of nylon hose, I thought it was strange that so many men volunteered for those problems. They must have believed the old French saying Il faut souffrir pour être belle. (That’s huxley’s French lesson for the day, if he’s around).
The Iranian hardliners were joking when they threw Iranian gays off of buildings. Unfortunately gravity isn’t a joke. It’s a law.
Some folks won’t see the humor in the Gay Pride children joke.
F around and find out.
Excuse me for not laughing.
https://redstate.com/jimthompson/2023/06/28/californication-california-is-set-to-pass-laws-allowing-for-state-sanctioned-kidnapping-and-required-affirmation-of-gender-confused-kids-n768679
More… https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12238655/Detroit-parents-slam-deceptive-teachers-seek-truth-secret-records-trans-students.html
Nope, they don’t ‘really’ mean it …
These people are sick. Disney has a pedo problem. This was hard to watch.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4164149/posts
It’s all good fun épater le bourgeois until le bourgeois notice.
Related:
“Why Europe and America are going in opposite directions on youth transgender medicine”—
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/4070174-why-europe-and-america-are-going-in-opposite-directions-on-youth-transgender-medicine/
H/T Instapundit.
Key grafs:
‘ A growing number of countries, including some of the most progressive in Europe, are rejecting the U.S. “gender-affirming” model of care for transgender-identified youth. These countries have adopted a far more restrictive and cautious approach, one that prioritizes psychotherapy and reserves hormonal interventions for extreme cases….
‘ If implemented in American clinics, the European approach would effectively deny puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to most adolescents who are receiving these drugs today. Unlike in the U.S., in Europe surgeries are generally off the table before adulthood.
‘ Why…? The answer is that Europeans are following principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM), while Americans are not.
‘ A bedrock principle of EBM is that medical recommendations should be grounded in the best available research. EBM recognizes a hierarchy of information.….’ [Emphasis mine; Barry M.]
(Why? Some might opine, “Follow the money…”)
Seriously though, where are all those—who piously, plaintively and monotonously intone that the US should be so much more like Europe—when you need ’em?
It was understandable that gays didn’t want to be ashamed and made to feel inferior, but with all the publicity and agitation surrounding homosexuality, self-affirmation became advertisement for the lifestyle, and came to be seen as such. It’s also hard to coordinate the desire to be accepted as mature, responsible adult members of the community with the desire to act out one’s feelings and attract attention by whatever means.
There’s a growing division in the gay world that militants, activists, and Democrats are working hard to suppress. There are the determined militants and proselytizers, there are the zanies (everybody’s little brother, the beneficiaries of much tolerance because they aren’t taken seriously), there are the sybarites and swingers, and there are the mature, responsible homosexuals trying hard to make their gay marriages work (the group we were told were, or would become, the majority).
A growing number of countries, including some of the most progressive in Europe, are rejecting the U.S. “gender-affirming” model of care for transgender-identified youth. These countries have adopted a far more restrictive and cautious approach, one that prioritizes psychotherapy and reserves hormonal interventions for extreme cases.
Similar to abortion? There are things to be said for our populist, individualist, rights-based society, but also drawbacks. Absolutist rights-based individualism prevails over moderate policies that give more of a role to medical professionals. On the other hand, we are probably further away from making euthanasia a common practice than Canada or Europe.
Looking Back: “We’re Coming For Your Children” Group, The Radical Faeries, was Founded by a “Man-Boy Loving” Marxist https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/06/looking-back-were-coming-your-children-group-radical/
I’m not sure the Radical Fairies ever been formally incorporated, so I’m not sure you can say they have a corporate position on anything but what you can observe of them. Their founder, Harry Hay, was an open advocate of including NAMBLA in homosexual agitation, so there’s that. Sexually violating children was of a piece with Hay’s general viewpoint, which was tended toward an end to critical assessment of ‘sexual expression’ of any kind. He said (to a respectful NPR interviewer in 1990) that he’d founded the Radical Fairies because he was disappointed in regard to the evolution of the Mattachine Society after 1950 (which he helped found), because the organization wasn’t interested in promoting anything bizarre above and beyond the private practice of sodomy.
==
A note on NPR. I’m remembering some bint on NPR around about 1999 arguing obstreperously with Milton Friedman on Eastern European economies. Of course, Hay, who was disgusting as they come, did not get similar treatment.
The Church and the Children?
DRYDEN, Mich. (AP) — Unmarked buildings, the visiting priests arrived discreetly, day and night.
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fapnews.com%2Farticle%2Fthe-reckoning-us-news-ap-top-news-mi-state-wire-michigan-abe2da0da2f648ad89dde483a92d3f19