Virtue signalling, do-gooders, dog-whistlers & gas-lighters

Virtue signalling, do-gooders, dog-whistlers & gas-lighters

- by Ranting Panda, 22 January 2020

(Jesus was a virtue-signalling do-gooder. Trump is a dog-whistling gas-lighter)

It's better to virtue-signal, than dog-whistle.

Ever notice how conservatives often use invectives to demonise people helping others. If you dare to care, you're a do-gooder or bleeding heart, if you dare to show solidarity with a marginalised group, you're virtue signalling. It's a form of gaslighting, in which conservatives are trying to make those who care, doubt what they are doing by questioning their motives and belittling their actions.

It's better to be a do-gooder than a do-nothing ... or worse, to be someone who does actual harm. These attacks on 'virtue-signallers', 'do-gooders', 'bleeding hearts' and so on, are just perpetuating the systemic racism, bigotry, alarmism & fear-mongering of the establishment and the conservatives who focus on individual greed and gain over social good.

Conservatives use alarmism like most people use coffee. They stimulate fears of 'the other', by claiming that virtue-signalling and do-gooders are part of a socialist plot to destroy the moral fabric of society, they argue that climate change is a socialist plot to take over the world and destroy capitalism, they argue that helping Muslims fleeing war and persecution are terrorists who will destroy our society and replace it with a Sharia state, they argue that allowing same-sex marriage will destroy the traditional family unit. 'The sky is falling, the sky is falling', screech these conservative Chicken Littles as they stampede blindly into Populism Fox's lair ... ignoring common sense and destroying their own values in the process.

Too bad if conservatives feel challenged over their lack of virtue, kindness and love. These attempts to insult and mock those who care for others, says far more about the person doing the mocking than it says about the person being mocked.

Ever notice that many of those who do the mocking are Christians? It's almost like they would consider Christ to be a virtue-signaller when he protected the woman caught in adultery and stated to the crowd, 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone'.  He was certainly a do-gooder when he said to 'love your neighbour' and 'love your enemy'. Remember the parable of the sheep and the goats, in which Jesus states 'whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me'. Now, if the 'virtue-signalling' wasn't clear enough, Christ then stated the converse, 'whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me'. It seems these Christians don't quite grasp the concept of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. They certainly must be angry that the bible actually tells them that Christians are called to be do-gooders. Ephesians 2:10 states 'For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do'. Then there's the Good Samaritan. By conservative standards, the Good Samaritan was virtue-signalling when he cared for the beaten traveller. Interestingly, this parable was told after Jesus said to 'love your neighbour', and someone tried to trick him by asking who was his neighbour. The parable made clear that anyone is our neighbour and we should be do-gooders, we should be 'virtue-signalling' if that means helping others.

Because, you know, visiting asylum seekers in immigration detention, going to Mosques and befriending Muslims, defending transgender people against abuse, would all be seen as virtue-signalling by conservatives, even though these are the very things people should be doing without criticism.

Denigrating those who care for or show solidarity with others, is similar to the behaviour of some convicted criminals who tear down others to make themselves look better, rather than actually trying to better themselves. That in a nutshell is the hollowness behind labels such as virtual signalling and do-gooder. It's easier to tear others down than to improve yourself. It really is more a reflection of the person mocking others than the person being mocked.

Terms such as do-gooder and virtual signalling, are dog-whistling to conservative victimhood, where conservatives portray themselves as the victims when they get called out for victimising innocent people. Accusations of virtue-signalling are used to salve the conscience of those who do not treat others as they would like to be treated. Instead, they love to reframe the narrative as though they are the victims, rather than the people they victimise. They wallow in this sense of victimisation in another attempt to gaslight those who call them out for the bullies, oppressors and tormentors that they are.

This abuse of others should be called out. People should stand in solidarity with the marginalised and the victimised. It is important that marginalised and victimised people understand that they are not alone, understand that there are people who welcome them, understand that there isn't anything wrong with them regardless of the homophobia, Islamophobia, xenophobia, racism and bigotry of those abusing them.

Who is empowered by invectives such as virtue-signalling and do-gooder? Racists, bigots, despots and oppressors. Using these terms in the way that conservatives do, only serves to empower racism and bigotry, while discouraging people from being kind, it gaslights people into thinking that identity politics and cruelty to others is normal. It empowers the politics of cruelty and denigrates the politics of kindness. It normalises hate speech and hate crimes. It is fodder for authoritarians, despots, totalitarians and the likes of populist heads of state, such as Scott Morrison, Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, who have no interest in truth or concern for the poor and the marginalised. In fact, they weaponise fear of the poor and marginalised to stimulate their political popularity.

Some people accused NZ Prime Minister Jacinta Adern of virtue-signalling when she showed solidarity to New Zealand's Muslim community after a right-wing terrorist murdered 49 worshippers in two Mosques. Apparently, Adern was doing this purely for political reasons. Wow! Even if she was, it would be a nice change for the politics of kindness to be more popular than the politics of cruelty.


Alas, in Australia, America and many other countries the politics of cruelty is the popular politics - interestingly, this is supported by Christians and others who claim they are the virtuous ones, the defenders of society's moral fabric. How degenerate have these people become to believe that the politics of cruelty is a necessary part of the social fabric.

It should be noted, that the Christchurch Imam stated that the 'love and affection' of New Zealanders, including the authorities, has resulted in greater unity between Muslims and non-Muslims; it has provided New Zealand's Muslims with a greater sense of belonging (Saqqaf & Theodosiou 2020). This demonstrates the effectiveness of Adern's 'virtue signalling'. This outcome would not have been achieved if politicians chose to perpetuate the marginalisation of the Muslim community. Muslims would have been feeling even more vulnerable, if politicians had chosen to gaslight them or the people supporting them. Muslims would have been more marginalised if politicians had dog-whistled instead of doing good.

Rather than trying to shame people who care, those who are cruel and selfish should be the ones who are shamed. Instead of virtue-signaller and do-gooder being socially-acceptable invectives, they should be unacceptable terms that reflect the racism, bigotry and ignorance of the person using them. Rather than marginalisation, victimisation, racism and bigotry being the acceptable standards, these should be treated with contempt.

Those accused of virtue-signalling and being do-gooders are the heroes, they are the ones whose treatment, concern, care and love for others should be the example that society accepts, for it is this love for others that will truly build up the moral, ethical and unified fabric of society.

It's better to virtue signal than gaslight.

It's better to be a do-gooder than a dog-whistler.

Reference

Saqqaf, S & Theodosiou, P 2020, 'Christchurch imam says unity between Muslims and non-Muslims, not division, was the result of the attack', SBS Arabic24, 23 January, viewed 31 January 2020, https://www.sbs.com.au/language/english/audio/christchurch-imam-says-unity-between-muslims-and-non-muslims-not-division-was-the-result-of-the-attack

Updated: 15 January 2021

~~o00o~~

The sex continuum and gender fluidity

The sex continuum and gender fluidity


For years, LGBTIQ+ people have been fighting for acceptance, recognition, equity and respect. While there have been improvements, there are still some people who argue that there are only two genders and that this is supported by science. However, what theynet are talking about is sex rather than gender. Gender is about roles, identity and expression. The World Health Organization provides the following description of gender.

'Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men, such as norms, roles, and relationships of and between groups of women and men. It varies from society to society and can be changed' (World Health Organization).

Gender development is not straight forward. It is complex with many possible variations that are influenced by a multitude of factors, including hormones or conditions such as congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) which causes a high level of male hormones in females, resulting in female genitalia often being mistaken for male genitalia  (NHS 2016).

Sex is binary in its most basic form, that is, male and female. But .... that doesn't exclude variations. Males and females have 23 pairs of chromosomes, for a total of 46 chromosomes. Of these, 22 pairs are identical between males and females. The remaining pair are called the 'sex chromosomes' and in females, they are both X chromosomes, whereas in males, one is an X and one is a Y chromosome (U.S. National Library of Medicine 2019).

However, not everyone is born this way. Some males are born with three X chromosomes, some females are born with a Y chromosome. Some people are born with a physical characteristics of male and female, although it may not be readily identified at birth, or even until much later in life. These people are called intersex. It is estimated that 1 in 1500 people are intersex (Newman 2018).

The following diagram of the 'Genderbread Person', provides an excellent and simplistic guide to sex, gender, identity and expression.

www.ItsPronouncedMetrosexual.com

Just because there's black and white, doesn't mean that colours don't exist. As a result of the variety of sex combinations available through various chromosomal combinations, some scientists have suggested that sex should be considered a continuum, rather than a binary construct (Newman 2018). Similarly, gender identity has a myriad of combinations. The following diagram illustrates some gender combinations.

Science may support two sexes, however, it also supports a spectrum of sex and gender formations and identities. Intersex, by definition, means 'between the sexes', which indicates that sex is not a binary construct; it doesn't have just two options. Unfortunately, understanding nuance is not the forte of conservatives. Many of them have the attitude that intersex is some new fad, even though the number or type of chromosomes one has is not something that one chooses ... and it's been this way for millennia.

Source: Lee (2017)

In terms of hormones, people have testosterone, oestrogen and progesterone. Females tend to have higher levels of oestrogen and progesterone, while males tend to have higher levels of testosterone. But this isn't the case for all. There are men with higher levels of oestrogen and progesterone, while some females are born with higher levels of testosterone.

People are a complex mixture of genes, chromosomes and hormones. Each of these will impact whether a person is male, female or somewhere in-between, whether they are attracted to the same sex, opposite sex or have no sexual attraction, whether they identify with the sex they were apparently born with, or identify some other way ... or any combination not already mentioned.

Sex is a spectrum and gender is fluid, with both presenting in multitudes of ways. This can be confusing for those who only think in black and white, who can't see colours or nuance, who refuse to look outside their own ignorance.

Some conservative or religious people may find that the sex continuum and gender fluidity do not fit their narrow world view, however, not everything can be slotted into some cookie-cutter mould defined by religion or ignorance. Sadly, this has manifested itself through rejection, hate, violence, forced 'medical' treatment, 'conversion' therapy and other harmful practices.

Back in 1967, a quaint, psychedelic British band recorded a song called 'Incense and Peppermints', which had the following timeless lyric that is as relevant now as it was then:

Beatniks and politics, nothing is new
A yardstick for lunatics, one point of view

It's hard to believe that more than 50 years later, there are still people with such narrow world views about sex and gender, while following ultra-conservative politicians and preachers who border on the lunatic.

There's nothing wrong with having a narrow world view, but there is something wrong when this manifests in ways that try to force those views on others. For thousands of years, LGBTIQ+ people have been reviled by others. Of course, not all societies were like that. Some celebrated or revered those who were non-binary or had a gender variance. For instance, North American indigenous communities held 'two-spirit' people, those with male and female spirits, in significant regard (Enos 2017).

Many nations persecute people for their sexuality and gender identity. There are 75 jurisdictions that criminalise same-sex sexual activity between men, 45 jurisdictions that criminalise lesbianism, 12 jurisdictions that impose the death penalty for same-sex activity and another six jurisdictions where the death penalty is a possibility, while 15 jurisdictions criminalise transgender behaviours (Human Dignity Trust n.d.).

Even in countries were it is not criminalised, LGBTIQ+ people face rejection, discrimination and persecution. This was evidenced in Australia during the debate over whether to legalise same-sex marriage. While it was eventually legalised, the arguments were particularly toxic, with there being numerous attacks on LGBTIQ+ people and numerous religious leaders declaring it to be immoral and a threat to the welfare of children. Numerous church leaders said they welcomed gay people as long as they were not engaging in same-sex sexual activities. Imagine the message that this sends to LGBTIQ+ people. It is saying that they are unable to be 100% themselves, they can't bring their whole self to church, to work, or even within their families.

This rejection has a significant impact on the mental health of LGBTIQ+ people. Imagine how it must feel to not be able to discuss what you did on the weekend because it involved your partner and you knew that this would result in you being ostracised, judged, rejected. The first country to legalise same-sex marriage was the Netherlands in 2001. Since then, several other countries have followed, but there is still significant ostracising of and violence against LGBTIQ+ people, resulting in them being more susceptible to anxiety, depression, homelessness, self-harm and suicide. LGBTIQ+ youth often have 'elevated rates of emotional distress, symptoms related to mood and anxiety disorders, self-harm, suicidal ideation, and suicidal behavior when compared to heterosexual youth', with them experiencing three times the likelihood of suicide compared to heterosexuals (Russell & Fish 2016).

Conversely, where there is acceptance of LGBTIQ+ people, there is less mental health issues, less homelessness, few incidents of self-harm. For instance, in 1985, Denmark became the first country in the world to legalise civil unions, and Sweden followed in 1995. Since then, both countries have legalised same-sex marriage, resulting in the number of suicides of lesbians and gay men almost halving (Wakefield 2019)

When Australia implemented anti-bullying programs in schools, there was a backlash by religious fundamentalists who were convinced that this would turn children gay. Yet, this backlash was the very issue that the anti-bullying programs were trying to address. Studies have found that where schools have such anti-bullying programs and affirm student's sexual and gender identities, there are fewer reports of homophobic victimisation, assault and harassment, while LBGTIQ+ students feel safer and are less susceptible to depression, substance abuse and self-harm than in schools which don't have these programs (Russell & Fish 2016).

This affirmation of identity enables LGBTIQ+ people to be their whole selves without fear. They can go to school, work, church, family, and social situations without feeling the need to hide their sexuality or gender identity.

In 1970, the world's first gay pride parade was held in New York City, on the 12 month anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, in which members of the gay community rioted in protest against ongoing police harassment following a raid on a gay nightclub, the Stonewall Inn (History.com 2019).

Gay pride movements sprang up across the globe to combat the homophobia, harassment and rejection that LGBTIQ+ had experienced for so long, and to provide a safe place for people to be who they truly are without fear.

But the ignorance remains. Homophobic bigots have attempted to hold 'straight pride' rallies and think that gay pride is there for LGBTIQ+ people to force others into their 'lifestyles'. The bigots are the ones who are forcing others into their lifestyles, LGBTIQ+ people simply want the same rights and opportunities. They express it as pride, because for far too long they were made to feel ashamed of who they are, to hide who they are. They were subject to violence, persecution, arrest, vilification. They were told that their natural sexuality and identities were sins. They were told that they were abominations. There are some bigots who still claim this. Straight people have never been arrested or vilified for being 'straight', they have never been made to feel ashamed of their sexuality or gender identity and expression. They have never been in a situation where they cannot talk about their partner.

Thankfully, the world is changing and the dinosaurs who try to force their bigoted views on others are in the minority. Sadly, these dinosaurs continue to cause significant trauma to others. They argue that there is a 'gay agenda' to dismantle society's traditional values. They victimise LGBTIQ+ people in the name of their religion or conservative, archaic 'values', then when they are called out for their homophobia they squeal as though they are the victims.

Gender is fluid and sex is a spectrum, as evidenced by numerous scientific studies and regardless of whether or not some people can comprehend this.

Accepting the facts and accepting people for they are will not destroy society, but will improve it, enabling everyone to live their lives openly and fully. The only 'gay agenda' is one of acceptance, equality and equity.


References

Enos, T 2017, '8 Things You Should Know About Two Spirit People', Indian Country Today, 29 March, viewed 18 January 2020, https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/8-things-you-should-know-about-two-spirit-people-294cNoIj-EGwJFOWEnbbZw.

History.com 2019, Gay rights, 3 July, viewed 18 January 2020, https://www.history.com/topics/gay-rights/history-of-gay-rights.

Human Dignity Trust n.d., Map of Countries that Criminalise LGBT People, viewed 18 January 2020, https://www.humandignitytrust.org/lgbt-the-law/map-of-criminalisation/.

Lee M, 2017, 'How many genders are there? Two. Sort of.', Medium, 31 October, viewed 24 November 2019, https://medium.com/@cultureshock/how-many-genders-are-there-9a2aa6e82151

Newman T, 2018, 'Sex and gender: what's the difference', Medical News Today, 7 February, viewed 24 November 2019, http://medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363.php.

NHS 2016, Gender dysphoria - Overview, 12 April, viewed 18 January 2020, https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/.

Russell, S & Fish, J 2016, Mental health in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth, 28 March, Annual review of clinical psychology Vol 12, pp. 465-487, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4887282/

U.S National Library of Medicine 2019, Your guide to understanding chromosomes - how many chromosomes do people have?, 12 November, viewed 24 November 2019. https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/basics/howmanychromosomes

Wakefield, L 2019, 'Same-sex marriage in Sweden and Denmark has reduced the number of lesbians and gay men dying by suicide by almost half', 14 November, viewed 18 January 2020, https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/11/14/same-sex-marriage-in-sweden-and-denmark-has-reduced-the-number-of-lesbians-and-gay-men-dying-by-suicide-by-almost-half/

World Health Organization n.d., 'Gender, equity and human rights', viewed 24 November 2019, https://www.who.int/gender-equity-rights/understanding/gender-definition/en/.