And the question remains, why? This topic has been off-limits within liberalism for at least 25 years, but perhaps going back to the 1970s. As I note in my article, we are expected to think of “sexuality” (and also, now, “gender”) as some kind of intangible essence beyond our ability to understand or explain. Curiosity as to the origins and influences of these phenomena is quite nearly prohibited. You will be accused of advocating “reparative therapy” if you approach these topics with an intention of discovering and analyzing the social incentives or processes of psychological development that would lead a 65-year-old grandfather like Bruce Jenner to declare himself a “Caitlyn,” a woman trapped in a man’s body. Yeah, sure, and I’m a Mississippi Delta blues legend named Leon “Catfish” Tucker.
For some reason, all this puts me in mind of Alix Dobkin’s lesbian feminist anthem of the 1970s that included the refrain:
Every woman can
Be a lesbian.
Well, I suppose this is true in some sense, but the question still remains: Why? One arrives at a fork in the road, so to speak, and examines the two paths in terms of their probable destinations. There might be some thought to the advantages and incentives of going one way or the other, and one might inquire of other travelers what the route ahead is like. Far be it from me to compel anyone on a sort of forced march, as a conscript in the army. Volunteers make better soldiers, and if someone doesn’t want to join my regiment, I’d just as soon not have them in the ranks, as their influence is apt to spread demoralization among the other troops. Yet it is obvious — to me, at least — that many people don’t think about these things in a truly serious way, but instead are just chasing after their whims, heedless of the consequences.
How strange it is that someone like me, notoriously wild and impulsive, would find himself in middle age forced to become the voice of reason, while everyone else seems to have lost their cotton-picking minds.