TikTok influencer and transwoman Rose Montoya filmed herself topless in front of the White House during a Joe Biden’s pandering Pride event. Montoya was joined by two transmales who were also shirtless. Stay classy, trans activists! The White House was horrified, stating, “This behavior is inappropriate and disrespectful for any event at the White House. It is not reflective of the event we hosted to celebrate LGBTQI+ families or the other hundreds of guests who were in attendance… Individuals in the video will not be invited to future events.”
Awwww. The White House set itself up for this conduct, and got exactly what it deserved. Montoya responded by saying that she was not trying to be inappropriate but simply “living in joy.” “Why is my chest now deemed illegal when I show it off, however before I came out as trans, it was not,” she asked?
Yes, she is an idiot.
Further observations:
1. If the LGTBQ+ community wants to alienate a majority of the country, stunts like that will do the trick. It is astoundingly incompetent and irresponsible for the still vulnerable group to allow its most juvenile and narcissistic members to represent it in the news and in public forums.
2. The episode also demonstrates the kind of thing that will push the public to the Right. Whoever managed the President’s Pride Pander should be fired. Stupidly violating the flag-flying code was relatively trivial (though Republicans pounced), but allowing the White House to be used as a pro-trans exhibitionism prop was insane, especially in light of Biden’s posturing about bringing dignity back to the Presidency.
3. Now the White House is caught in the middle, like Bud Light and Target.
4. Good.
Ethics Alarms 
Sometimes, all one can do is quote Elvis Costello:
“I used to be disgusted
Now I try to be amused
Since their wings have got rusted
You know the angels wanna wear my red shoes.”
Petards meet your hoist.
Wait . . . isn’t this thr same Administration accusing parents of grade school kids who objected to TransTime StoryHour of terrorism and transphobia?
jvb
Exactly. Isn’t making women cover their chests heteronormative, cisgendered oppression? This is a teachable moment. The person who should be fired is the person who said this wonderful display fighting The Man was inappropriate. And isn’t “appropriateness” itself a white supremacist and sexist construct? This woman (guy? I’m never sure which way they’re going or have gone) should be placed in charge of the energy department or something.
And David Hogg chimed in with his wisdom:
-Jut
Poor David. He’s like a political version of Danny Bonaduce.
You know what, I bet that Bonaduce has him beat in the political arena, as well.
-Jut
“It is astoundingly incompetent and irresponsible for the still vulnerable group to allow its most juvenile and narcissistic members to represent it in the news and in public forums.”
Bravo Indigo November Golf Oscar!
With the direction of the wind having been determined, watch for the Schrödinger’s Douchebags to recoil in horror as they collapse onto fainting couches.
It’s one thing to accept that gay people are our neighbors and must not be harassed. It’s one thing to accept that same-sex couples should be allowed the same legal rights as opposite-sex couples. Homosexuality is something I still don’t “get” intellectually, but, rack my brain as I try, I can’t think of a solid reason to oppose either of these, and religious reasons and “EWWWWW! BUTT SEX!” aren’t enough. It’s no different than otherwise deviating from perfect conformity, and I think we’ve concluded that those who deviate, but do their best to fit in should be given the benefit of their efforts.
However, all of this presupposes that those who are not 100% conforming will try their best to fit in and not be disruptive. I’m still a little iffy about a flag being displayed that involves identification by otherwise private behavior, as opposed to ethnicity, faith, or membership in this or that organization, but we’re stuck with the rainbow flag, like it or not, in one of its many iterations. Marching with a flag is one thing. Breaking the flag code is one thing, although if you mention it now the other side will just say what about all those other parading organizations that seem to have forgotten that the stars and stripes go to the right of all the other flags?
Transgenderism is still not something the majority of people in this nation are 100% comfortable with. It’s one thing to say that you love someone of the same gender. It’s another to say that you ARE a member of the opposite gender, you want chemical and surgical intervention to become like the opposite gender, AND you demand everyone else accept this, on pain of accusations that are supposed to carry the same power as racism. It’s a bridge WAY too far to display this kind of behavior at a venue that’s supposed to be the most dignified one of all, and then call it “living in joy.”
If you’re not ok with the display of a flag that’s fallen out of favor, or the celebrating of a nuanced historical figure, or now the celebration of a country you decided falls short of your idea of what it should be, but you’re all for cheap exhibitionism and turning the White House into a strip club, then it’s you who’s the problem. And screw you, David Hogg, may you soon go the way of Cindy Sheehan and all the other vitriolic, hate-filled, loudmouthed jerks the Democratic party used and promptly discarded when it didn’t need them anymore.
This reminded me of a post I wrote about a year ago titled What’s Considered Normal?
It seems to me that the entire LGBT+ community, and those that actively support it, are trying to ram the opinion that their lifestyles regarding gender and sexuality are “normal” down everyone’s throat when in fact their choices are “abnormal” by definition.
This virtue signaling “pride” event at the White House celebrating that which is literally abnormal, by definition, was utterly ridiculous and the behaviors of transactivists just add to the ridiculousness, the White House earned their scorn for allowing this to take place. The White House is promoting division, not unity.
How about we stick our thumbs in the eye of the social justice cult and have a few different kind of “pride” months; how about one that celebrates the “normal” hertosexual lifestyle or one celebrates whiteness and show everyone that “White Lives Matter” or one that celebrates the natural process of procreation and the subsequent new life of children that it creates. Honestly I think the one that is truly needed would be a “pride” year that celebrates unity instead of tribal divisions and actually do the things that support and promote unity instead of division.
With its customary irreverence, the Babylon Bee:
Biden Updates Iwo Jima Memorial With PRIDE FLAG
Jack, you wrote “It is astoundingly incompetent and irresponsible for the still vulnerable group…” – please tell me how this group is in any way vulnerable. They have support of the government, media, corporations, schools and every other part of our society. I will lose my job if I inadvertently misgender one of them. I see nothing vulnerable about belonging to the most “cool”, “accepted”, “proclaimed” group in current history. I believe your bias is showing, and according to you bias makes you stupid.
What’s my bias? They are vulnerable the same way all minorities are vulnerable. You can see it right here in the comments. Openly gay people get discriminated against, and, I suspect, always will. Flamboyant,socially-unorthodox public conduct reinforces the justifications for prejudice against the group. Members of any minority begin at a disadvantage, and have to earn trust and acceptance—the more unlike the majority they appear, the harder the job is. The psychological baggage that comes from being gay doesn’t vanish because laws protect them. The “cool”, “accepted”, “proclaimed” part is all compensation—you should know that. LGBTQ individuals are in a constant struggle trying to resolve the conflict between essentially hiding in plain sight, or trying to banish insecurity by openly revealing their sexual orientation. The majority of us never have to worry about that, ever. Research shows that lesbian, gay, bi, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) teens are at increased risk of suicide. You think it’s because they feel so “cool”, “accepted”, “proclaimed,” do you? Interesting.
They are vulnerable. Members of the group who behave like assholes don’t help: they make it worse.
My “bias” is looking at a situation objectively based on both study and experience. (It makes me ethical.) I have discussed this issue with many gay friends and colleagues for decades. You?
It’s still as poor an argument as saying that black people have a harder life, or any other CRT crap.
First of all, it’s a huge generalization, which is quite limited in its utility. Is it helpful to say that Kristen Stewart is more disadvantaged or vulnerable than some dirt-poor white boy living in a trailer in Appalachia? At the less extreme, is it helpful (or even true) to say that an upper-middle class white liberal teenager living in San Francisco who identifies as bisexual is more vulnerable than anyone around her? Conversely, a gay kid living in podunk Texas will probably feel more vulnerable than an otherwise identical peer. Whether they truly are more “vulnerable” in any objective measure is probably debatable.
While it’s true that the LGB community often run into some type of negative attitudes about their personal characteristics, that’s true of every person who’s ever lived. It may be more widespread among this community, but there’s also a much more powerful and prevalent inverse–which is what Kaydee is describing. And asking people in that group whether they feel vulnerable, in this Age of Victimhood, is not helpful. Looking at group metrics is a two-edged sword–the huge weaknesses in relying on incomplete statistics and inferring causality aside–I’d imagine that the LGB community is probably not disadvantaged in any measurable way.
To take one characteristic, like skin color or sexuality, and say that it disadvantages people is both true and false and thus, in my opinion, untrue and unhelpful. Being gay will help lots of people in myriad ways–it will also be a disadvantage in other situations. It’s almost like you could study how these things intersect with each other, but then you’d be studying a pseudoscience within a pseudoscience (intersectionality within sociology/psychology! YUK) and wouldn’t be producing anything of value.
I didn’t say that a characteristic disadvantages people. I said being a minority disadvantages people, and it does and always will until they join the majority. Stereotypes are real—when a minority group member lives up to a negative stereotype, it harms the whole group. I don’t care whether they feel vulnerable: they are vulnerable, and that’s why their conduct identified with the group has to be as admirable of better than the majority.
I don’t see how anyone can dispute that. The constant complaint from minorities that they have to be better than the majority group to be accepted is used as leverage and as an excuse, and my response to that is, “Yup! That’s life, buddy. Stop bitching and deal with it. I’ll try to help from this end.”
And by the way, “CRT crap” doesn’t say that “blacks have a harder life,” but the the US is systemically rigged against them. That is crap. That it is easier to be white than black in a majority white population is true, but it has nothing to do with “the system.” It has everything to do with human nature, culture, role models, leadership, toxic life-style habits and a thousand other things—including high profile group members who embody the worst group stereotypes.
This doesn’t appear to be addressing my argument at all.
“That it is easier to be white than black in a majority white population is true…”
My whole point was that taking one characteristic and labeling it as easier or harder is wrong and at best, a worthless observation. You’re trying to quantify an ambiguous idea (who defines “easy”?) and doing it for a group of people who all have different intrinsic motivations and desires. It’s like making policy decisions based on the World Happiness Report.
I lived in eastern Asia for a few years teaching, so I know what it feels like to be a very visible extreme minority. Sometimes it made life more fun and interesting, and sometimes it didn’t. Overall, I couldn’t say whether it made my life better or worse, and I don’t see how deciding that would help anything.
Whether something is “easier” or not is entirely in the eye of the beholder and is almost entirely situational. That’s why CRT is crap.
You’re being willfully obtuse. When I’m traveling in a foreign country, other Americans who act like jerks make me vulnerable to being the object of bias. When I was the only white presenter in an African ethics conference, I was on my very best behavior, because I knew that my conduct would reflect on others of my “minority.” If one’s limited exposure to a minority group member is negative, then one is likely to decide, “Boy, I don’t want people who act THAT way around if I can help it.” How you get from there to CRT is bewildering.
My comment said nothing about majority bias and minority status. That may very well be a challenge that some minorities face, but has nothing do to with my argument. No obtuseness needed.
Yes, but that’s what the post was about. You seem to think it was about the privilege excuse or claiming to be a victim. I wrote that the LGBTQ collective is vulnerable, and the natural majority bias regarding minorities is why. You dispute that, and to dispute it you must argue that majority bias isn’t a powerful feature of any community with distinct groups.
What I found interesting about this was that the two left leaning bubbles interacted with here.
The centrist Liberals are still in this bubble that likes to pretend that everyone on the right still shudders while clutching their bibles at the mere thought of someone committing the sin of sodomy. They don’t see the excesses, or they pretend they aren’t there, so they can continue pretending that none of the criticism sent the soup group’s way is legitimate. This episode dragged them kicking and screaming closer to reality, because something they could not ignore brushed against their bubble. This wasn’t some French feminist group protesting tit laws, this was a white house guest, on the white house lawn, posting unapologetically to social media.
And for the progressives… What should they apologize for? The White House is in DC, the law in DC allows women to go topless, and what’s legal is permitted, right? I’m not even being all that coy, that’s the gist of what Rose said in response. Rose is just living an authentic life, and gee… all those conservatives angy about bared tits at the white house, well, that just proves that they believe those tits are on a woman, because they’re not angy about men going topless.
It’s what happens when you remove mores, tradition and shame. We know, here, that just because something is legal it isn’t necessarily ethical. But that is a lesson lost on progressives, generally. It’s also why they have a tendency to think that everything they view as immoral should be criminalized. They’ve synonymized their ideal of the law with their morality. While it’s important to live a relatively “true to yourself” lifestyle, there are limits. I don’t think that anyone would argue that it would have been acceptable were Rose to drop trow and leave a turd on the Whitehouse steps, but by this logic Rose could have… I mean, sometimes you just need to poo, and who are we to tell someone when that’s appropriate? Who am I to inconvenience someone by making them find a washroom? How dare I shame someone for a natural bodily function?
I still don’t think this moves the needle very far for a lot of people. The reconciliation hasn’t been forced hard enough yet. We win when Democrats are forced to reconcile the conflicts in their narrative. They Floyd riots forced the reconciliation of “Cops are bad” with “Only cops should have guns” and we haven’t heard serious gun control narratives in years.
It will be interesting, I believe, really do believe, that the average Democrats actually has morals. They either ignore or avoid having to view or otherwise interact with the excesses of their peers, and they’re able to do that in part because their media diet is stunted. If the reconciliation of their morals and their party’s excesses are forced to reconcile, I’m not sure whether the party will just give up the ghost and settle into depravity, or if they’re sufficiently turned off to impact elections and force a recentering.
“If the reconciliation of their morals and their party’s excesses are forced to reconcile, I’m not sure whether the party will just give up the ghost and settle into depravity, or if they’re sufficiently turned off to impact elections and force a recentering.”
HT, I think depravity is the destination. The anarchist/nihilist/Marxist/revolutionary wing of the party has turned all the others in the party into ready, willing and able (to the point of being enthusiastic) useful idiots. Damnedest thing I’ve ever seen. A society eating itself.
And a delightful comment. Thanks.
My level of acceptance for any particular special characteristics a person possesses can be calculated as a direct inverse correlation of the amount of participation required from me in order to accommodate the individual’s special characteristic.
If participation requirements are very low, then acceptance will be very high.
If participation requirements are very high, I probably hate you. I also probably will not tell you that to your face, and will still treat you the same as I would treat anyone else. Not because I accept you, but because being an asshole takes a lot of energy.
Agreed.
jvb