Gender identity and sexual orientation are not binary, or black and white, in nature and conservatives just can’t accept that because it’s. coming from the leftists blasting the normalization of our transgendered citizens in the faces of the “hoards of bigots” in flyover country.
Well, the reason we don’t accept it is because it’s not broadly true. :-) Svetlana Voreskova has published a rather enormous biblography in other posts of peer-reviewed scientific articles refuting the entire notion.
There are of course grey areas at the margins, but for the vast majority of our citizens, gender and orientation are very much fixed entities.
So, the issue on the table, if one is really concerned with “rights”, is to insure that those at the margins are not discriminated against. And most of us on the “ignorant right” are more than happy to accomodate in a reasonable fashion that addresses all concerns involved.
However, we do not find the left interested in “reasonable accommodations to all concerns”. As the original article proposes, the desire seems to be to find a solution which incenses the right, and then demand it be implemented as the only solution acceptable.
That sort of governance philosophy never ends well, historically.
I love how you don’t even try to pretend that the cultural rigidity of the right has more to do with being anti-left than actually standing for something.
See above. What is “cultural rigidity” and how do you measure it? How is that different from the normal inertia found in any culture? Mores evolve organically, and any student of classical sociology will tell you that when the mores are FORCED to evolve (in the past, this was usually by being conquered, but today, it’s often by the courts) the natural reaction is dissension, resistance, and in extreme cases, revolution. To what extent do the religious beliefs of the individuals account for that “rigidity” (in that religious beliefs are immutable) and how do you intend to manage the fact that we have a constitutional right to our beliefs? Do you seriously contend that the defense of historical tradition, biologic reality, and religion aren’t “standing for something”?
None of that has anything to do with being “anti-left”. It’s all sociology, biology, and psychology. Are you seriously arguing that if not for leftist animus, your opponents would just roll over and accept every social justice solution you deem appropriate?
I would challenge you to rethink the assumptions in that sentence.