I hear that you enact me this way. I personally think you are not enacting me properly, which is why I get so irritated when I see you misrepresent my views, or take them to an unnecessary extreme (such as accusing me of saying “parents have no business being involved in their children’s lives”, which is an obvious straw man argument. Can you understand why this would irritate me?) It’s also why I get irritated when, while trying to more fully explain my views to you, and all the various nuances contained therein, you make ad hominem accusations of me “thrashing in the weeds”. No, I’m not thrashing whatsoever, I am actually spending my time trying to carefully answer your questions and explain my reasoning to you.
As I mentioned in this discussion with Keith, it seems to me that the integral stage is the very first stage where our response to these kinds of questions is something like “it’s really complicated”. To every preceding stage — amber, orange, and green — the answers to questions like abortion, gender, etc. are all seen as simple, depending on the overall ideology of the group.
Abortion is simple to Amber — it’s a sinful practice, and if you just outlaw it and it will go away. It’s simple to Orange — it’s a standard medical procedure, and should be available to all women. It’s simple to Green — women’s bodily autonomy is paramount, and should be protected at all costs. It’s only when we get to Integral when we can say, with full authenticity, “these are incredibly difficult and complicated issues.”
And when it comes to my experience with you, it feels like if I do not agree with any of these oversimplicactions —especially if I do not agree with your own personal views — and when I try to explain the subtleties of my thinking, you accuse me of being a far left Marxist. Doubly so when I try to answer every question you ask of me, but you seem to pick and choose which questions you want to answer, and only answer them once I’ve pointed out how one-sided the discussion is (which is what makes it feel like an interrogation).
Do you really see no difference between “4-8 year olds knowing that LGBTQIA+ people exist” and LGBTQIA++ ideologues inserting into public school curriculum LGBTQIA++ Intersectionality?
I don’t know what “intersectional ideology” in particular you are talking about. But I am certain that exists too. But I also think things like the so-called “parents’ rights bill” way overshoot the mark, and actually create more suffering and confusion for kids than it solves, for all the reasons that I have mentioned in the past. I don’t think supporters of the bill are actually actively taking the perspective of LGBT individuals – who will always be LGBT individuals regardless of the surrounding “ideologies”. And I care about them, far more than I care about whatever backward belief systems or fads the may be surrounding them. (And yes, in this talk with Keith, I absolutely acknowledge the existence of these “fads” and how they are creating confusion for many kids who would otherwise not feel so confused. I also draw a line in the discussion around what I feel like is appropriate at these age levels, and what is plainly inappropriate. Interestingly, I am more “conservative” than Keith is, in this particular discussion )
However, I also know that fads come and go, what’s cool today will assuredly not be cool tomorrow, so this stuff doesn’t work me up too much. I am far more concerned with the overall physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual health of these kids, and I know that outright banning speech about sex and gender in schools will do far more harm than it will help. Which I think is probably fairly obvious, the moment we actually allow ourselves to take one of these perspectives.
Of course it should not be illegal for children to know transgenders or gays exist exist.
Then we appear to agree that the Florida law, which specifically forbids students from talking about the existence of LGBT people with teachers in the classroom, is overshooting the mark, and likely creating more suffering than it solves, by using undefined subjective language such as “developmentally appropriate” in the bill. What is developmentally appropriate, and who is making those calls? If a parent happens to think that ANY acknowledgement of LGBT people is “developmentally inappropriate”, can they hold the school liable for damages? And won’t this create an atmosphere where no teacher feels safe to acknowledge LGBT people in their classroom whatsoever? Are we actually taking the perspective of the kids who will be damaged by this chilling effect?
Do you really conflate “12 year olds should not be forced to raise a baby” from “no parental consent or even inform required for an abortion”?
I see it kind of like I see capital punishment. If there is even the smallest chance that even one single innocent person will be put to death by the state, then I cannot condone capital punishment. So I default to maximum liberty. In a similar vein, if there is even the smallest chance of a 12 year old being forced to bear and raise a child, then I cannot condone that either. I don’t care about the surrounding culture war, I care about that 12 year old child. If allowing a child to seek a doctor’s permission, rather than parental permission, helps ensure that no 12 year old will ever be forced to deliver a baby, then that is the solution I will go for. Again, I don’t care about the perceptions of “morality”, I care about the bottom line of human suffering.
So, I point to the absurdity of the question itself — why would a kid be too young to make this kind of medical decision, but not too young to bear and raise a child? I feel like this question gets directly to the heart of the issue, and surfaces its underlying contradiction.
Now when we get to medical decisions for minors, we do disagree. I think the parents are the appropriate decision makers for their children.
I understand that you feel this way. Do you acknowledge my counterpoint? In your view, should a Marxist collectivist parent also be allowed to force their 17 year old daughter to have an abortion, if the child herself does not want one? Or should parents only be the sole decision-makers if their decisions result in fewer abortions?
Similarly, should a parent be able to deny their child a life-saving medical intervention? Or should the child have some degree of autonomy when it comes to their own life-or-death decisions? How absolute do you think parents’ rights should be?
I might be the most vocal (all those music lessons as a wee laddy enable me to type really fast) but am hardly the only ILer to point out they lack of “official” political diversity of thought.
I mean, fair enough. We are a very small organization, obviously, and we tend to talk predominantly to integrally-informed people. Which means, we talk to people who have themselves grown into the green stage, and then grew out of the green stage, and are therefore capable of criticizing green from a post-green space, rather than a pre-green space. And honestly, there just haven’t been a whole lot of conservatives who a) meet those qualifications, and b) have self-selected into this community. There have been some, however, in the larger integral audience (mostly on Facebook, as well as in my own close friend group) and I am frequently in conversation with them in order to further hone my own ideas — which helps me to better steel man these perspectives while talking with people like Keith, Mark, Ken, etc., rather than only going after the easy straw man caricatures.
But it’s a problem when any view that transcludes Green is seen as “far left”, simply because there are some remnants of green in there. Which is why I think it’s important for us to hang our ideological preferences and assumptions on a hook next to the door whenever we walk into this community. And is why I love talking with conservatives — especially when they can pass the Green test Because again, the only way to integral, is through Green. There is no skipping that stage. Which means there is an entire field of Green-stage conservatism just waiting to be claimed — a space that is capable of criticizing the excesses of Amber and Orange (and yes, will probably understand phrases like “extractive capitalism” without abandoning capitalism altogether, and yes will probably be inclusive of multiple identity typologies, and yes will probably be just as concerned about things like climate change as their progressive counterparts) — and I think the first ones there are going to make a hell of a splash.