The Liberal government has made the 2SLGBTQI+ the focal point of its Woke tyranny. The acronym stands for “Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and additional people who identify as part of sexual and gender diverse communities. The “2S” at the front recognizes Two-Spirit people as the first 2SLGBTQI+ communities. The “I” for intersex considers sex characteristics beyond sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. The “+” is inclusive of people who identify as part of sexual and gender diverse communities, who use additional terminologies.” (Women and Gender Equality Canada) The premise on which 2SLGBTQI+ rests is the narrative that Canada was founded by European conquerors who imposed heternormativity and patriarchy on the Native population and the marginalized and oppressed non-Indigenous communities—particularly the BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Colour). Naturally, this is patent nonsense. That is not to say that racism never existed in Canadian history and that gay and lesbian people were persecuted. There were historical wrongs that Canadians acknowledge, and changes to Canadian law have been instituted to guarantee equality under the law and opportunity, and, where appropriate, reparations have been made to affected individuals. For example, survivors of the Japanese internment during World War Two were awarded $21,000 each in 1988. Also, twelve million dollars was given to the Japanese Community Fund, along with 24 million dollars towards the creation of a Canadian Race Relations Foundation to ensure that similar injustices would never happen again. (National Association of Japanese Canadians) But for the current Liberal government, that is not enough. In short, the Liberal government uses the acronym to project Trans Queer fantasy and nonsense onto Canadian history. They are revising our history, if not trying to erase it, and making it an offence to challenge or criticize the narrative with the passage of Bill C-9, the Combating Hate Act. (Canadian Constitution Foundation)
I remember submitting an essay for grading in a course on the sociology of religion I took at Queen’s University in 1983. When the essay was returned to me with the grade and the professor’s comments, he noted that I used the terms Catholic and Christian interchangeably. He pointed out that while Catholics are Christians, so are Protestants. By using the terms Catholic and Christian interchangeably, I blurred the distinction between the two and risked giving the reader the impression that Protestants were somehow not Christians. Naturally, I understand that there are several denominations and sects in Christendom that profess different beliefs concerning Christian doctrine. However, I took the professor’s point that a little clarity goes a long way. What prompted the memory of my essay and the comment is how I noticed that so many people use the terms gay and queer interchangeably. I see this in news articles and discussions on online forums. Occasionally, someone refers to me as queer or a member of the queer community. I politely correct them, telling them that I am gay, not queer, and no, I am not a member of the queer community. I ask that they respectfully not refer to me as a queer, as I do not like it. The term is a slur, a derogatory term used historically to describe a gay man. It is like calling a black man a coon or a Jewish man a Hebe. Yes, I know that there is a countercultural constituency that claimed to have “reclaimed” the term. They are free to call themselves what they want, but it is objectionable when they use the terms gay and queer interchangeably when referring to gay men. In short, a gay man is a male homosexual, a man who experiences same-sex romantic and sexual attraction. Gay men are represented in all races and ethnicities. They are individuals, and the only thing they have in common is their sex and orientation.
Sadly, countercultural thinking in gay rights activism emerged in 1990 with the introduction of Queer theory; this is an ideological position, as Renee Janiak notes, the Queer theory holds:
To be queer means, “fighting about social injustice issues all the time, due to the structure of sexual order that is still deeply embedded in society” (Warner: 1993). Queer people are not assigned into a specific group or category, which would be comparable with any other type of grouping such as “class” or “race” (Warner: 1993). Queer people have made a change with how they identify themselves, they went from “gay” to “queer”. The self- identification change is due to that fact that “queer” represents the struggle of not wanting to fit into the systems of being “normal”. Queer theory has allowed for new political gender identities (Butler: 1990). (Queer Theory)
By 2016, Noah Michaelson, editorial director of HuffPost Gay Voices, rebranded the blog as HuffPost Queer Voices. In doing so, he claimed, “We, like many others before us, have chosen to reclaim ‘queer’ and to rename the section HuffPost Queer Voices because we believe that word is the most inclusive and empowering one available to us to speak to and about the community — and because we are inspired by all of the profound possibilities it holds for self-discovery, self-realization and self-affirmation,” […]. “We also revere its emphasis on intersectionality, which aids in creating, building and sustaining community while striving to bring about the liberation of all marginalized people, queer or not.” (Advocate) He added, “For a lot of people, intersectionality is difficult,” […]. “I think that a lot of groups who are marginalized or disenfranchised have their sights set on trying to bring about liberation for that particular group. It’s only been recently that people understand that most oppressions are all tied together. We’re not going to really get very far if we’re just trying to work in our own lane. We actually have to be working with each other because at the end of the day we’re all trying to get the same thing, I hope. And that is liberation for all marginalized people and for all people.” (Advocate)
Queer or 2SLGBTQQIA+ replaced gay and lesbian, meaning gay and lesbian people not wanting to fit in “existing social institutions,” defined by the queer theory as “heteronormativity.” Queer activists strive to organize a community composed of “the more socially conscious” gays and lesbians “to provide leadership to the whole mass of social variants” in developing a parallel “queer culture.” Yes, they are free to promote this narrative and pursue their desired goal. That said, in reality, gay remains gay, a demographic, not a community, and increasingly, many gay men, myself included, have actively rejected that narrative. When I mention in passing that I am gay, I typically mention my husband, Mika, with whom I have been for twenty-seven years. We are a conventional gay couple who are not at odds with heterosexuality or “heteronormativity.” Others understand that we are gay, male homosexuals, in a loving and committed relationship. We are assuredly not queer; what does that even mean? What we think of the “marginalized and disenfranchised” has nothing to do with your sex, race, orientation, or anything else. When it comes to the queer community, we ask that they stay in their own lane and kindly stop using the terms gay and queer interchangeably in referring to gay men. Yes, a little clarity goes a long way.
Those of us across the world who are working to end the involuntary genital cutting of boys are at an impasse. We have demonstrated beyond any doubt that intact genitals are as nature intended and debunked the claims that the male prepuce was a vestigial piece of skin that served no purpose. Despite that, cowardly politicians insist their hands are tied because they cannot breach the rights to religious liberty and parental autonomy over their children’s bodies. At least not when boys are at issue. They had no trouble enacting prohibitions on all forms of genital alteration on girls, no matter how minimal, despite the religious sensibilities and autonomy of parents to raise their daughters how they saw fit. Western nations lead an international effort through the United Nations to end female genital mutilation. When Iceland, a European country with a population of 340,000 people, moved to update its legislation in 2018, prohibiting involuntary genital cutting of girls to include boys, the United States intervened. The US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, in a letter sent to the Embassy of Iceland, Congressmen Ed Royce, the Republican chairman of the committee, and Eliot Engel, its top Democrat, wrote: “While Jewish and Muslim populations in Iceland may be small, your country’s ban could be exploited by those who stoke xenophobia [read anti-Muslim prejudice] and anti-Semitism in countries with more diverse populations.[…] As a partner nation, we urge your government to stop this intolerant bill from advancing any further.” (Times of Israel.) The Amendment to the legislation did not pass.
The thing to remember, also, is that in Iceland and the rest of Europe, the majority of the population does not cut the genitals of boys and girls involuntarily–which might make people think that a ban is moot. Still, one wonders why the ban on cutting girls is not viewed as something that “could be exploited by those who stoke xenophobia” [read anti-Muslim attitudes] in countries with more diverse populations.” Somehow, that only applies if you make the ban on involuntary genital cutting universal by including boys, and that is irrational. Despite these hurdles, the effort to protect boys continues — no one said it was easy. There is an interesting development in the recent controversy over “gender-affirming care” for minors. The issues of religious liberty and parental autonomy are back at the fore in the dispute over the ethics and legality of subjecting children to surgeries and drug therapies that result in the chemical and surgical castration of children whose parents believe they were of the opposite sex into which they were born. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Tennessee law that prohibits gender-affirming care for minors is constitutional. The challenge to the law was based on the 14th Amendment, with arguments that the ban was discriminatory based on sex and violated the laws and the rights of parents to make medical decisions for their children, following their beliefs. The court did not consider the latter arguments in reaching its decision.
Given this development, one wonders how scurvy politicians will justify the involuntary genital cutting of boys based on the superstitions and wants of their parents. Why is it not tolerable to alter a girl’s private parts or allow parents to authorize sex changes on their children regardless of their beliefs, but it is bearable to allow radical and irreversible alterations to a boy’s genitals for no other reason than someone else wants it? Why is the notion that boys have rights, particularly to the integrity and security of their person, so contentious? I am cautiously optimistic that the Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on gender-affirming care for minors will cause renewed attention to the ethical and legal issues of the involuntary genital cutting of boys. I hope that the Icelandic parliament will reintroduce its legislation to protect boys and girls alike from involuntary genital cutting and that other Western jurisdictions will follow suit. This invidious state of affairs has gone on too long.
Hannah Arendt developed the concept of the banality of evil: “Evil comes from a failure to think. It defies thought for as soon as thought tries to engage itself with evil and examine the premises and principles from which it originates, it is frustrated because it finds nothing there. That is the banality of evil.” I am reminded of this when I note the dismay of Intactivists when Facebook posts pop up where a newborn boy is subject to involuntary genital cutting for any reason or no reason. I also note the angry reactions of the parents who do not care for the criticism or condemnation for doing this to their newborn sons. Yes, there is no shortage of people who see nothing wrong with it and will tell you to mind your own business. That and they retort, “Don’t choose it for your son if that’s how you feel!” I watch with interest as Eric Clopper, Attorney at Law and Founder & President of Intact Global, mounts a constitutional challenge in Oregon for the protection of boys from involuntary genital cutting. I stand with him and hope for the best as he and his team of lawyers proceed with the challenge. The challenge is based on the constitutional guarantee of legal equal protection. As the involuntary genital cutting of girls is prohibited in US law (in several states, not federally), the reasoning is that boys deserve equal protection. Though I am neither a lawyer nor a legal scholar, as a well-informed layman, I expect the challenge will be an uphill battle.
I like reminiscing, looking back on my life, and thinking of the people I knew as a boy and from my younger days in adolescence and manhood. Sadly, some of them have departed. Still, I think about those still alive and hope they are happy. I served as a reservist in the Canadian Army from 1978 to 1982, when I was in high school and university. I joined the 30th Field Artillery Regiment based in Ottawa. I trained in a group of private recruits under the supervision of a Bombardier who was a Carleton student. We had our differences and misunderstandings during my basic training. I spent almost every night and weekend on the defaulter’s parade. I served three years in the 30th Field and one year as an attached posting to the Princess of Wales Own Regiment (an infantry regiment) in Kingston, where I attended university. I transferred to the PWOR in 1982 and was promptly mustered out when the unit was downsized. I had a brief, undistinguished stint of military service in the Canadian Army, but I am proud that I served my Queen and country.
The thing to remember is that gay is a demographic, not a coherent community. I am a gay man, a free thinker and a skeptic. I am proudly Anglo-Saxon; both sides of my family came from the British Isles, my father’s family from England and my mother’s from Ireland. Short of taking a DNA test, it is anyone’s guess what blend of ethnicities may be in my ancestry. However, that is neither here nor there. The fact remains that I am a middle-aged, gay white man. That said, those characteristics are irrelevant. Above all else, I am an individual. I am the man I am today because of my childhood and adolescence circumstances. I grew up in Canada in the latter half of the 20th century. I remember the Centennial celebrations in 1967 on Canada’s 100th birthday. I learned to take pride in my heritage, and the freedoms and opportunities afforded me as a Canadian. Still, growing up gay in my generation had its challenges.Continue reading →
A recurring theme in ancient Greek mythology is that you cannot outrun your fate. I think about that idea when I look back on my life and how, throughout it, people assumed that I was a homosexual. In grade school, a woman who lived across the street from my family was hired by my parents to prepare lunch for my siblings and me when we came home from school. I recall how she said that I would end up a confirmed bachelor. A confirmed bachelor was code for a homosexual historically. In middle school, I had a fleeting romance with a girl. When my seventh-grade teacher learned of our liaison, she expressed surprise; she never imagined me being interested in girls. In high school, I asked my brother if he would sound out a girl I fancied to see if she was interested in me. He reported that when the girl realized what he was up to, she retorted, “He’s a fairy!” When I joined the Canadian Army as a Reservist at eighteen, I entered the classroom one day at the Armoury and found a caricature of me as a pink bunny drawn on the blackboard captioned with anti-gay slurs. To their credit, the other recruits told me it was intended as a joke–that they liked me. Still, I wondered why people thought I was a homosexual.
Listening to a true believer in gender identity and gender expression explain why they believe reminds me of when I was a pious Roman Catholic. I am sure I sounded much the same to non-believers when I explained why I had taken the leap of faith to practice Roman Catholicism. I accepted the theological arguments, the authority of Scripture, and the Apostolic Tradition that compose Roman Catholicism. I attended mass daily, said my prayers, and tried to do good and avoid doing evil. I regularly examined my conscience and tried to turn away from sin. It was reasonable to me at the time. Though I tried to be true to my faith, lingering doubt remained. Eventually, I realized that I could not continue as it was hypocritical of me. I stopped going to mass. I no longer believe in the claims of Christianity.
“Do you think religion inherently good?” This was a rhetorical question posed to the class when I was a student at Queen’s University in 1986. The class was in a course in the history of Christianity. The question was posed by Professor William P. Zion who was on the faculty of the department of religious studies and the Queen’s Theological College. He was also a Russian Orthodox Priest, Father Basil. We were young students who never stopped to think about this. Professor Zion answered the question for us, telling us, “no, religion is not inherently good.” He cited the fact that historically Christians gathered to watch people burned at the stake as a witness to their faith. Professor Zion had a bit of fun with the class in posing this question, but what made me recall this memory is the fact that the majority of humanity practices some kind of religion. I appreciate and understand the appeal of religion for people. I was a pious Roman Catholic myself for several years. Interestingly, it was Father Basil who supported and encouraged me to accept my gayness and continue practicing my faith. I concur with Professor Zion in that I do not think religion is inherently good. This puts me in a bind at times as I interact with people of various faiths, who view their faith as inherently good, right and desirable, both personally and informally in my daily life. Continue reading →
There is a great deal of discussion about Kim Davis, the clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky, jailed by U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning who found her in contempt of court on September 3, 2015. She defied the court order to issue marriage licenses as required in her capacity as County Clerk. Davis refuses to issue marriage licenses in protest of the Supreme Court of the United States ruling in Obergefellv. Hodges on June 26, 2015 that made same-sex marriage lawful across the United States. She justifies her refusal to issue marriage licenses on the grounds of her religious objection to same-sex marriage. As she stated: “to issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience.” (New York Times) The question here is whether her refusal to issue marriage licenses is genuinely a matter of faith and conscientious objection to same-sex marriage or, as many of her critics allege, simply a cynical ploy on her part to draw attention to herself and feather her own nest in the process. Is this nothing more than religious hypocrisy on her part? Continue reading →
Geoffrey & Mika 