Wow, this is scathing! I had never heard of Khan before this. Had you been following him, or did you look all this up now? Did you coin the phrase "sharp as a sack of wet mice"? I'll have to remember that one. This is a wriggly piece of writing, to be sure. I was unable to divine who its intended audience was. It didn't exactly hang together well, and I'm sure my reading it very late at night didn't help matters. I must say I didn't read it as an indictment of homosexuality, but perhaps I should take another look at it. I had trouble getting through it the first time, TBH.
No I hadn’t heard of him before, either. Guess we travel in somewhat different circles. No, that phrase isn’t mine. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, that’s due to the Warner character Foghorn Leghorn. Who’s a parody of a parody, so I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if it was even older than that.
If you do go back and read this piece, with its actual headline “Not born this way,” let me know what you think.
I love that you use Foghorn Leghorn quotes! I would not have guessed the source, but when I watched the clip I do recall having seen it as a child. I shudder to think what all is lodged in my subconscious from watching all those cartoons as a youngster, ha. Also, thanks for the history on the character. I think it's pretty neat to have a parody of a parody.
I did go back and look over the article again, and I see what you're saying. The author seems to be going out of his way to not exactly say what he's saying, if you know what I mean. I think that's why I found it so confusing. I still don't completely understand where he's coming from, TBH. It seems like he'll say contradictory things, sometimes even in the same paragraph, which is super annoying. I would love to hear more about your perspective if you feel inclined to share it. I know you wrote quite a bit already, but it was more about the author, and I didn't find it terribly illuminating. Is there some connection I don't grasp between the 'elite' and views of homosexually? What do you think his agenda is exactly? I understand if you don't want to spend anymore time on this, but I value your opinion.
One interesting thing about reading online is that I find things that I don't know how to interpret. If someone is coming from a very different background or has an agenda that I don't have a context for I can get disoriented. I often read comments to gain insight into differing interpretations and perspectives on things, and usually this is helpful and leads me to further reading. I have rarely read such an opaque and convoluted article as this, and I wanted to see what people thought of it. I almost didn't share it because I was concerned that people would find it offensive, but I'm glad I did because it's generated some interesting conversation.
Seems to me that Khan works at making his readers believe that he believes just as they believe, but once you rinse away the ooze, what's left is bony, stark and nowhere nearly as attractive as it may’ve been before.
That piece of Khan’s from the Times is coated with the same slickness found in this article. That last paragraph is a cipher, which was, I believe, fully intended.
It's as if, if you ask me, Khan has considered what people of various mindsets will make of his pieces, and constructs them like pachinko machines to guide his readers down through his sundry and various points to a dramatic finish. The same finish every other reader sees, though they may have very different ideas of how they got there and what they saw along the way. People in this thread, who’ve made real efforts to suss out what’s going on in the piece, have commented that they got very differing impressions of the exact same piece. This is artful writing, but as admirable as that capability is, in this piece arguing what he’s really arguing, it smacks to me of deception. Or, at least, of letting people see what they want to see, believe what they want to believe, all while getting away with running a three-card Monty operation.
I would say that Khan’s point with this piece is that being gay is a choice, the idea that there is innate sexual orientation is a dangerous and suddenly now widespread in society because of ‘activists,’ and that if you insist on such a thing then you may as well be a Nazi eugenicist. That's a simplification of his pachinko maze, in which we ignore mechanical devices like his suggestion that believing in innate sexual orientation is a disservice to transexuals, because, I assume, he has in mind some supposition that transexuals have obviously made a socially-constructed choice about what body they want, and doesn't get that intersexed people, for instance, had no choice about which mortal coil they were given at the factory.
But I don’t believe that is his real point. I think his point is that he can secrete enough waxy resin all over his writing to slip a fairly toxic bolus under people's nose without them noticing, like this thing he's gotten out under Aeon’s masthead, and that he should be generously funded by the right people to make this skill into a going brand of so-called ‘traditional values.’ To my mind, he’s shopping himself out as a thinking-man’s scold. He’s put in his time telling elites how hard they have it in the modern world, how great their characters are under such trying conditions as our times, and now he means to make it rain as a popular ideologue.
The clearest evidence of this that I’m struck by, peeling away the sticky plaques of phrases like “are not wrong” and “biological determinism,” is that this bright fellow has no sympathy at all for the people he’s writing about here. He discusses innately gay people in dismissive terms, consciously is my sense, by denying them agency in their own lives referring to his actual targets here in terms of ‘activists,’ ‘supporters,’ and ‘the gay-rights movement.’ The stretch in this piece where he revels in disgust at ’pederasty’ is, I think, nearer his real frame of mind than other parts of this pinball text in which he goes on about how innate sexuality is mere ‘desire.’
I’m not particularly interested in this piece, think it’s a glib put-down of people meant to polish his brand of sycophancy to hi...
Seems to me that Khan works at making his readers believe that he believes just as they believe, but once you rinse away the ooze, what's left is bony, stark and nowhere nearly as attractive as it may’ve been before.
That piece of Khan’s from the Times is coated with the same slickness found in this article. That last paragraph is a cipher, which was, I believe, fully intended.
It's as if, if you ask me, Khan has considered what people of various mindsets will make of his pieces, and constructs them like pachinko machines to guide his readers down through his sundry and various points to a dramatic finish. The same finish every other reader sees, though they may have very different ideas of how they got there and what they saw along the way. People in this thread, who’ve made real efforts to suss out what’s going on in the piece, have commented that they got very differing impressions of the exact same piece. This is artful writing, but as admirable as that capability is, in this piece arguing what he’s really arguing, it smacks to me of deception. Or, at least, of letting people see what they want to see, believe what they want to believe, all while getting away with running a three-card Monty operation.
I would say that Khan’s point with this piece is that being gay is a choice, the idea that there is innate sexual orientation is a dangerous and suddenly now widespread in society because of ‘activists,’ and that if you insist on such a thing then you may as well be a Nazi eugenicist. That's a simplification of his pachinko maze, in which we ignore mechanical devices like his suggestion that believing in innate sexual orientation is a disservice to transexuals, because, I assume, he has in mind some supposition that transexuals have obviously made a socially-constructed choice about what body they want, and doesn't get that intersexed people, for instance, had no choice about which mortal coil they were given at the factory.
But I don’t believe that is his real point. I think his point is that he can secrete enough waxy resin all over his writing to slip a fairly toxic bolus under people's nose without them noticing, like this thing he's gotten out under Aeon’s masthead, and that he should be generously funded by the right people to make this skill into a going brand of so-called ‘traditional values.’ To my mind, he’s shopping himself out as a thinking-man’s scold. He’s put in his time telling elites how hard they have it in the modern world, how great their characters are under such trying conditions as our times, and now he means to make it rain as a popular ideologue.
The clearest evidence of this that I’m struck by, peeling away the sticky plaques of phrases like “are not wrong” and “biological determinism,” is that this bright fellow has no sympathy at all for the people he’s writing about here. He discusses innately gay people in dismissive terms, consciously is my sense, by denying them agency in their own lives referring to his actual targets here in terms of ‘activists,’ ‘supporters,’ and ‘the gay-rights movement.’ The stretch in this piece where he revels in disgust at ’pederasty’ is, I think, nearer his real frame of mind than other parts of this pinball text in which he goes on about how innate sexuality is mere ‘desire.’
I’m not particularly interested in this piece, think it’s a glib put-down of people meant to polish his brand of sycophancy to his elite conservative patrons, am surprised that he’s gotten away with calling innately homosexual people knowing that about themselves ‘dangerous’ in front of so many Snapzu readers, but I’m grateful you posted it. Never be afraid of posting things you disagree with, or that you’d like other folks to give a critical eye to. As much as it may seem like I’m ranting about nuanced, complex writing being, in this instance, disingenuous, it’s a fine post that I’m glad to’ve been shown. You can really tell when a community like this is working when they’re sophisticated enough to understand you don’t always agree with or support the things you post. Thanks again. You rule.
Thanks so much, /u/AdelleChattre! If Snapzu had some kind of special award feature for going above and beyond I would give it to you. You're so thoughtful, and I know this must have taken some time to write. I do appreciate it.
I think you're dead on with your analysis. This article is almost like multiple articles superimposed on top of one another, and you're likely to see the one you already agree with, or at least already understand on some level. I guess I'm not used to such tricky writing, and it is kind of impressive. I like reading things that are a bit challenging, because how else am I to learn anything? I'm glad to be able to get other perspectives here. I don't always agree with what I post, but I try to post thought provoking things. (Well, that and the usual frivolity like baby bat videos and articles about buttered coffee).
I am occasionally afraid to share something because I don't fully understand it, or because I think it will be poorly received, but then I tell myself that that's silly and I should have more courage than that. Interestingly, I find I'm not very good at predicting what anyone will think of anything, anyway. Thanks again for taking the time, and just being around in general. You share such interesting things, and you have a rare and admirable mind. :)
What I think is missing is a perspective on human sexuality and identity. Sexual desire and sexual identity are not always the same thing.
- That's a good point. The article does seem to be coming at sexuality from the perspective of desire rather than identity. I agree that the two are related and overlapping, but not synonymous.
I think Gay oppression arises from the rigid notions we hold on gender that keeps heterosexual identity in a rigid framework partly out of fear of being seen as 'gay'.
- Yeah, I agree. It's a complex problem, to be sure, and I do think that the rigidity of gender norms is a big part of it. Not wanting to seem 'gay' is like not wanting to seem feminine. Even 'straight' men who happen to seem feminine can be ostracized. Obviously things are even more difficult for those who are in fact gay, but it's worth noting that there is not much tolerance for a man seeming feminine, for whatever reason, in many cultures. The accepted norms of gender and sexual identity are still woefully limited.
The bottom line is respect, respect, respect.
- I can respect that. ;)
Thanks for sharing your perspective! This article seems to be a bit of a Rorschach, perhaps because it's so long and convoluted, LOL. The replies have been interesting.
Wow, this is scathing! I had never heard of Khan before this. Had you been following him, or did you look all this up now? Did you coin the phrase "sharp as a sack of wet mice"? I'll have to remember that one. This is a wriggly piece of writing, to be sure. I was unable to divine who its intended audience was. It didn't exactly hang together well, and I'm sure my reading it very late at night didn't help matters. I must say I didn't read it as an indictment of homosexuality, but perhaps I should take another look at it. I had trouble getting through it the first time, TBH.
No I hadn’t heard of him before, either. Guess we travel in somewhat different circles. No, that phrase isn’t mine. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, that’s due to the Warner character Foghorn Leghorn. Who’s a parody of a parody, so I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if it was even older than that.
If you do go back and read this piece, with its actual headline “Not born this way,” let me know what you think.
I love that you use Foghorn Leghorn quotes! I would not have guessed the source, but when I watched the clip I do recall having seen it as a child. I shudder to think what all is lodged in my subconscious from watching all those cartoons as a youngster, ha. Also, thanks for the history on the character. I think it's pretty neat to have a parody of a parody.
I did go back and look over the article again, and I see what you're saying. The author seems to be going out of his way to not exactly say what he's saying, if you know what I mean. I think that's why I found it so confusing. I still don't completely understand where he's coming from, TBH. It seems like he'll say contradictory things, sometimes even in the same paragraph, which is super annoying. I would love to hear more about your perspective if you feel inclined to share it. I know you wrote quite a bit already, but it was more about the author, and I didn't find it terribly illuminating. Is there some connection I don't grasp between the 'elite' and views of homosexually? What do you think his agenda is exactly? I understand if you don't want to spend anymore time on this, but I value your opinion.
One interesting thing about reading online is that I find things that I don't know how to interpret. If someone is coming from a very different background or has an agenda that I don't have a context for I can get disoriented. I often read comments to gain insight into differing interpretations and perspectives on things, and usually this is helpful and leads me to further reading. I have rarely read such an opaque and convoluted article as this, and I wanted to see what people thought of it. I almost didn't share it because I was concerned that people would find it offensive, but I'm glad I did because it's generated some interesting conversation.
Seems to me that Khan works at making his readers believe that he believes just as they believe, but once you rinse away the ooze, what's left is bony, stark and nowhere nearly as attractive as it may’ve been before.
That piece of Khan’s from the Times is coated with the same slickness found in this article. That last paragraph is a cipher, which was, I believe, fully intended.
It's as if, if you ask me, Khan has considered what people of various mindsets will make of his pieces, and constructs them like pachinko machines to guide his readers down through his sundry and various points to a dramatic finish. The same finish every other reader sees, though they may have very different ideas of how they got there and what they saw along the way. People in this thread, who’ve made real efforts to suss out what’s going on in the piece, have commented that they got very differing impressions of the exact same piece. This is artful writing, but as admirable as that capability is, in this piece arguing what he’s really arguing, it smacks to me of deception. Or, at least, of letting people see what they want to see, believe what they want to believe, all while getting away with running a three-card Monty operation.
I would say that Khan’s point with this piece is that being gay is a choice, the idea that there is innate sexual orientation is a dangerous and suddenly now widespread in society because of ‘activists,’ and that if you insist on such a thing then you may as well be a Nazi eugenicist. That's a simplification of his pachinko maze, in which we ignore mechanical devices like his suggestion that believing in innate sexual orientation is a disservice to transexuals, because, I assume, he has in mind some supposition that transexuals have obviously made a socially-constructed choice about what body they want, and doesn't get that intersexed people, for instance, had no choice about which mortal coil they were given at the factory.
But I don’t believe that is his real point. I think his point is that he can secrete enough waxy resin all over his writing to slip a fairly toxic bolus under people's nose without them noticing, like this thing he's gotten out under Aeon’s masthead, and that he should be generously funded by the right people to make this skill into a going brand of so-called ‘traditional values.’ To my mind, he’s shopping himself out as a thinking-man’s scold. He’s put in his time telling elites how hard they have it in the modern world, how great their characters are under such trying conditions as our times, and now he means to make it rain as a popular ideologue.
The clearest evidence of this that I’m struck by, peeling away the sticky plaques of phrases like “are not wrong” and “biological determinism,” is that this bright fellow has no sympathy at all for the people he’s writing about here. He discusses innately gay people in dismissive terms, consciously is my sense, by denying them agency in their own lives referring to his actual targets here in terms of ‘activists,’ ‘supporters,’ and ‘the gay-rights movement.’ The stretch in this piece where he revels in disgust at ’pederasty’ is, I think, nearer his real frame of mind than other parts of this pinball text in which he goes on about how innate sexuality is mere ‘desire.’
I’m not particularly interested in this piece, think it’s a glib put-down of people meant to polish his brand of sycophancy to hi...
Read FullThanks so much, /u/AdelleChattre! If Snapzu had some kind of special award feature for going above and beyond I would give it to you. You're so thoughtful, and I know this must have taken some time to write. I do appreciate it.
I think you're dead on with your analysis. This article is almost like multiple articles superimposed on top of one another, and you're likely to see the one you already agree with, or at least already understand on some level. I guess I'm not used to such tricky writing, and it is kind of impressive. I like reading things that are a bit challenging, because how else am I to learn anything? I'm glad to be able to get other perspectives here. I don't always agree with what I post, but I try to post thought provoking things. (Well, that and the usual frivolity like baby bat videos and articles about buttered coffee).
I am occasionally afraid to share something because I don't fully understand it, or because I think it will be poorly received, but then I tell myself that that's silly and I should have more courage than that. Interestingly, I find I'm not very good at predicting what anyone will think of anything, anyway. Thanks again for taking the time, and just being around in general. You share such interesting things, and you have a rare and admirable mind. :)
You flatterer! Shameless, you are.
"Sharp as a sack of wet mice" -Foghorn Leghorn Quotes. Your right, it's a great phrase.
My favorite Foghorn quote: "Dumb as a sack of hammers."
Haha! I never would have guessed that, but it does make sense now that I know. Thanks for the link. :)
[This comment was removed]