What is Normal?

This question is at the heart of our culture war

Last week, Idaho Press reporter Carolyn Komatsoulis reached out to me for comment regarding my recent appointment to the Eagle Library Board of Trustees. I sent my prepared statement, and she asked me to clarify what I meant when I said that the library was for all people:

I could tell what was going on here, the angle she was going for. I replied that of course the library is for all people, and that materials are chosen by staff according to ALA guidelines, but communities should have input into that process.

Last night I saw the final project (archive link here), and the angle taken by Ms. Komatsoulis and the Idaho Press was exactly what I expected:

They just can’t help repeating the line that this is about banning books, rather than keeping harmful materials out of the hands of children. If a grocery store is cited for allowing teenagers to buy cigarettes, nobody accuses the police and the government of trying to ban cigarettes. We as a society understand that some things are meant for children and some for adults. Yet there has been a nationwide push to erase the boundaries between childhood and adulthood, and teaching children about LGBTQ+ ideas is part of that push. A large group of citizens in Meridian have stood up to say stop, and for that they are tarred as racists, Nazis, and book-burners.

Despite the obvious slant of the article, Komatsoulis reported my own quotes and statements accurately, so kudos to her. I want to take a closer look at one statement she chose to highlight:

(Click here to read the quotes in their full context.)

I am sure that Komatsoulis meant to condemn me with my own words here. Modern discourse has taught people to regard any such rhetoric as homophobic and bigoted. But let’s use some logic here. What we have in our culture is a competition between two very different value systems. The traditional view, what most people have believed for thousands of years, is that there are two sexes - male and female - and that the family - the basic building block of society - is composed of a father, a mother, and children. On the other hand, the novel view, the LGBQT+ view, is that sex and gender are limitless spectra, and that families can be anything people choose them to be.

The former view was uncontroversial since the dawn of time, and remained so up until about five years ago.

There are many people, some of whom I assume are well-meaning, who believe the two views can be reconciled. Gay marriage isn’t going to affect your relationships, why do you care so much, we were asked in the lead-up to Obergefell in 2015. We only want diversity, inclusion, and tolerance of ALL beliefs. But the truth is that these two worldviews are entirely contradictory and incompatible.

If the new LGBTQ+ value system is correct, then we really are a bunch of bigots who just want to harm people we disagree with. If they are right, then we have no reason for opposing them - for refusing to recognize gay marriages, for refusing to use their preferred pronouns, for trying to keep our children from their explicit materials.

On the other hand, what if the traditional system is correct? What if there really are only two sexes? What if families with a father and a mother really are the best, not only for the children involved, but for the community as a whole? If that is the case, then is it not a moral imperative to protect our children from this alternate value system, one that we believe is not only inconsistent with the natural world, but actively harmful to our children themselves?

My point in the piece that Komatsoulis quoted, and in many others, is that there is no such thing as neutrality between two such contradictory viewpoints. Even something most people with a traditional worldview consider a fair compromise - keeping explicit materials out of the hands of children - is still unacceptable to the most ardent LGBTQ+ activists. As James Lindsay has painstakingly explained, their own materials admit that they want children exposed to explicit ideas at young ages so as to awaken their latent queerness. This is not a baseless accusation, but the actual goals of pro-LGBTQ+ academics and thinkers. Click here to read my post on Queer Theory that goes into further detail.

Carolyn Komatsoulis and the other reporters at the Idaho Press and like-minded outlets clearly assume that the LGBTQ+ worldview is the correct one, thus they cast any opposition to explicit materials at the library as book banning because they cannot imagine any other reason except that the citizens concerned are bigots and Nazis.

It is telling that Komatsoulis did not go into detail about the books that the citizens were concerned about. Neither she nor the other reporters seem at all curious as to exactly why some parents and citizens are so passionate about this issue. Some of the books that are made available to teenagers contain graphic descriptions of sexual encounters, even pictures. Some of the books that are in the children’s section are more subtle, pushing the notion that the basic concepts of boy and girl are fluid. For journalists who respond with “But what’s wrong with that? It is just promoting diversity” remember what I said about about the competing worldviews. This is not a neutral position, rather it is taking sides in a cultural war.

As I said above, I believe the community should have input on what is available in a public, taxpayer-funded institution. If a community decides that their library should allow hardcore pornography in the teen section in the name of LGBTQ+ inclusion, then I suppose that is their business. My children will not be visiting such a place. I believe the role of the library trustees is not to make decisions for the community, but to listen to the community. I take seriously my responsibility as a trustee of the Eagle Library. Right now we are working on revising the strategic plan, looking ahead three, five, even ten or more years at how the library can continue to serve the citizens of Eagle. As a trustee, I want to be open to input from the community on how to keep the library a wonderful and safe place for all ages.

On the other hand, the Meridian Library Board has clearly taken an antagonistic stance toward the concerned citizens in their community, casting this controversy as one of book banning, rather than explicit pornography on their shelves. Rather than defending the materials that would have been confined to seedy adult bookstores just a decade or two ago, activists avoid the issue, using diversity and LGBTQ+ rights as a shield. It’s a shame that local media is right there beside them, rather than presenting an objective and balanced perspective.

The question I ask in the title is the one that this controversy dances around: What is normal? Is it the idea that there are two sexes, and that families are typically composed of a father, a mother, and children? Humanity has thought so since the beginning of time. Activists today are trying to change that idea, attempting to normalize a novel worldview, and claiming that a hundred thousand generations of mankind were wrong and they are right. Not only that, but they cast anyone who still holds the traditional worldview as bigots, Nazis, and other epithets. I believe it is entirely rational and appropriate to stand up and say “No, I disagree.”