This recounts a conversation begun in a private chat responding to a post I made on our PAC's facebook channel. I had originally posted:
This author does not speak for the the PAC. Our politics find broad areas of agreement with the author on the narrow topic of this article, 'Magical thinking, a deep dive into woke minds', and yet it is likely that Gender Critical Greens will take issue with a handful of the statements made in this piece. Nonetheless, there is much of value to be found here. We trust that GC Greens are mature enough to take what is useful here without being distracted by those references which might grate.
Magical thinking, a deep dive into woke minds
Then later commented like so:
We were contacted privately by the author of this article asking what it is they had written which lead to our 'tak(ing) issue' with the article linked in this post.
This was my response:
Having re-read it, the one point which I believe our constituency would take issue with is your slippery slope graphic at (pictured here).
Our folks may be divided to some extent on whether a privately operated bakery constitutes a public accommodation subject to Civil Rights enforcement. Most folks in our ranks though support the Court's acknowledgement in Obergelfeld of a Constitutionally protected privacy right to marry.
We would draw a very clear distinction between the right of same-sex attracted individuals to marry one another and the child grooming that is now passed off as so-called 'affirmation'. Lesbians have long been in the leadership of efforts to safeguard children from male violence, and particularly from the cooptation of an LGB liberation movement from the likes of NAMBLA.
The media outlets aligned with the political right generally ignore our work as they platform their own. The media outlets aligned with the political left pretends that there is no dissent on the left to the woke talking points handed down by the lobby for gender ideology. Our very dissent gets us shunned as aligned with the political right, in spite of our long history of organizing and activism for the rights of working people and marginalized communities.
But we clearly agree that compelled pronouns violate the constitutional protections afforded critical thinking and free speech; and operate as rohyponol and serve to tear down important boundaries which leads us to the sexualization of children and undermining parents role in overseeing the raising of their own children.
So it seems that comment was intended to protect our PAC from a backlash against an association of marriage with child grooming.
Check out the LGB Alliance. You will find many lesbians and a growing number of gay men who are speaking up about the dangers of gender ideology and queer theory.
LGB has nothing to do with the TQ, Inc. lobby. And our work to protect children from the pharmaceutical industry would be well served by an analysis which allows us to embrace our allies, while drawing a distinction between those disparate groups.
-- Hugh Esco, Secretary
Gender Critical Greens PAC