1 Comment

The "conservative" stock in trade right now is hate and fear- so this is hardly a surprising development. (Liberals use the same tactic at times). Much of this is simply driven by ignorance of both the (direct) genetic and non-(direct)-genetic aspects of gender identity.

For the most part- what we are seeing is broad legislation that is neither necessary or useful in addressing complex individual situations that would better be managed locally. As a pediatrician I have dealt clinically in the past with this complex issue, and as a toxicologist I have seen and helped to address the psychological distress of gender dysphoria manifesting as suicidal behavior. (I am NOT suggesting gender fluidity = suicidal, but it does sometimes lead to suicidal behavior as can all other psychological distress in any and all genders.)

My comment is more about the language in use. "Weaponizing" has become a replacement for "Politicizing"- but sounds much more threatening. Much like the so-called "assault rifle" is in fact no different functionally than any other rifle- it's just black and has doodads on it to look cool and match the rest of the "assault" gear/crap on line.

But what do we need an assault weapon FOR?? Clearly not wildlife assault (aka- hunting) or target assault (AKA- shooting practice)... You ONLY NEED IT IF YOU ARE: a) under assault or b) need to commit an assault- with the clear implication that the assaulting party and its respondents are HUMAN BEINGS. Assault Rifle = Rifle to kill people with. The idea of being under perpetual physical assault is a great marketing ploy- fear sells- but it has serious social consequences. The throwback to the Wild West (largely a figment of later imagination) is uniquely appealing the the US.

I know this may be a minority opinion- but we need to be a little careful adopting their terminology here- Weaponizing is a way of tying political discourse directly to perceived threat of physical assault and raising political debate to the threshold of violence. By making a political/philosophical debate into an eminent threat of destruction we increase the likelihood of violence from BOTH camps. The "who started it?" debate is useless- hate and fear have been political tools for as long as we have had politics (i.e. - since the dawn of man and probably in higher primates). We need to recognize it as a term used to escalate the level of perceived personal threat and the perception that the necessary response is violence.

Expand full comment