The LW should only raise the subject with his dad to remind him (or inform him, if he's that clueless) that to the Republican Party, he's an evil perverted deviant, and they're out to eliminate the likes of him. Maybe that would make him a better person politically.

"Dad is a cross-dresser. . . . (and a) Republican and comes off as very masculine."

This is redundant information.

Anyway, going forward: Dad has to vote for the next Democratic candidate even if it's Bernie Sanders or some brown-skinned woman or you'll out him. The beauty of it is that he'll probably get off on the degradation of being told what to do.

Always ask yourself what value the information would give to the person(s) before brining up something very personal and sensitive which could cause awkwardness, hurt, or embarrassment.

Nine times out of ten the answer is zero.

@2: He's probably already processed that.

4 so mean, so cold, sooooo right! I love it.

My mother habitually enlisted me as her confidant and sounding board for her emotional processing. It really did a number on me. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but I got a little tingle while reading. Placing young children and teenagers in this space is really harmful. It's even inappropriate for adult children.

Other than that point, I agree with DS in his response. Leave the guy alone unless you plan go full-bore and force him to vote for democrats only as a means of blackmail.

Yeah l-dub, tell mom to put her big girl pants on and ask herself, suck it up in silence, or break up her 40 year marriage. I'm sure she doesn't like any of those options, but hey... life and all.

@5 - Using the Socratic method I altered the facts to see if the outcome changes: What if Dad is gay or bi? The only time that would result in the "1 out of 10" need to reveal is if Dad acts out on his sexuality, putting Mom at risk like Dan suggests. If forgoing same-sex intimacy is "the price of admission" for Dad to remain in the marriage for 40 years, so be it. Dad/Son should not put the burden on Mom to realize that she has been the cause of Dad's decision, made so long ago.

Spot on advice all around.

@8 I'd want to know if my husband was gay. I don't think gay can be combined with bi in this instance, because at least with bi there is the likelihood that the romance and sexual attraction that characterized the start of their relationship was a real thing. I can't say what I'd do with that knowledge after a 40-year marriage, but I would certainly think that it was built around a lie.

Yes, I get that things were different 40 years ago; that doesn't change anything for me. To me, it wouldn't be about his being gay, but about the /lie/.

"needed to take a short break to visit a friend out of state to process"

What's up with this? This sounds... normal, but actually it's totally... not? Like, if your husband is a cross-dresser, why exactly do you need to leave the house?

@11 Sportlandia - Not just out of the house - out of state! And what is she telling the dad about why she is suddenly taking a short trip out of state if she refuses to mention she knows?

I’m still not clear about mom’s motivation to force-out husband, and why she can’t do it on her own. She may feel cheated, I don’t blame her, but where does she want to take it?
Does she want to divorce him? Will hubby’s admission make it easier for both and she will accommodate him/her? Does she want to have a leverage to pursue her own extra curriculum?
Most importantly, why would she drag, of course intended, their child into all this? Being gay and hosting pansexual parties doesn’t mean he wants nor should deal with his parents’ baggage.

LW- what your mother did almost qualifies as emotional incest. I understand she trusts you, but there’s no justification for her to put you in the messenger position.
Let two adults figure it out, like you would if friends are about to break (and I assume you already know that mediation attempts will only result in both of them blaming you for whatever.)
Let dad know you figured that out some 20 years ago only if he’s asking. Otherwise stay away and assure them both you love them regardless of the outcome, assuming you really are.

Well that is awkward LW, and I feel for you. Your mother should not have put you in this position.
I agree with Dan, stay out of it. Tell your mother it is way inappropriate for a man’s son to be bringing up his kink and if she needs to know more, it’s on her to have that conversation with her husband. Or not.
Perhaps suggest to your mom that she talk thru her reactions with a sex positive therapist, and gain some perspective.

Your father is a fucking hypocrite though, LW, and god knows the story he’s been living.
Forty years is a solid chunk of life, does your mother really need to blow up her husband’s carefully constructed hidden life. Tell her that it seems to be a bit of an issue with older people. Dan has thrown out a few these last week or so. I feel like I’m swimming in stories of men who lie and hide themselves. For decades. From their significant female other.
Tell your mother it’s no big deal. So what.
He likes to express his female side and the culture, especially republican weirdo culture, says it’s wrong to behave that way. So they hide it and create elaborate faces they hide behind.
Tell you mom that if she truly loves this man, then she could lovingly, one evening, while the two of them are having their five o’clock drink.. don’t see them smoking a joint.. tell him she knows. That she knows and she doesn’t mind a bit. In fact, she thinks it’s rather sexy, thinking of him in satin knickers..
Then stfu about it, finish her drink, give him a hug and kiss and then go somewhere else in their home. Leave him with this shock announcement. And say no more about it,until he brings it up, as it reverberates thru him.
He’s free at last. No more hiding from the woman he loves.
That’s what your mother could give your father, LW. If she’s serious about loving him.

Bravo, Dan.

Sporty @11/Kitten @12, it's totally normal to be shocked to find out something you didn't know about someone you've thought you've known intimately for more than 40 years and want to discuss it with a trusted third party, a best friend. This woman's best friend lives in another state. Nothing abnormal about that. This woman is 60-70ish and the kind of person who married a Republican, so it stands to reason that she's the kind of person who is shocked by a Savageland-mild kink like cross dressing. What did she tell Dad? "I'm going to visit Marjorie in Kansas for a few days, see you soon!"

I'm so disgusted by anyone who calls themselves Republican these days, that I'd be tempted to suggest that the kid expose his father's behavior to everyone he knows.
It's possible that Dad's Republicanism is a reaction against his deeper desires. Since Republicanism is nothing if not reactionary. So it might be helpful for his son to guide him out of the shame and into the light. Maybe he'll change his political affiliation if he no longer hates himself so much.

Why now LW? Your mother talked of this two years ago. It’s not your place or any child’s place to involve themselves in their parents’ sex life. He’s not a child. If your mother is fine to let it all cruise on by, then that’s her call.
The internet is here. Your dad can read. If he wants to stay a closet cross dressing republican, and your mom is fine to turn a blind eye. Then leave them to it.

@15 good point lava.

Please tell us about all your sexual proclivities - what positive you like, what sounds you make, every kink and fantasy you have, and make sure you tell your sons all these details.
You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, would you? Hiding yourself from your own flesh and blood, terrible!

@bdf they got phones.

"I don't see what this...will achieve other than embarrassing and humiliating your father."

I agree. And I confess to feeling like, as "a devout Republican", Dad wouldn't be totally undeserving of the exposure of his hypocrisy.

The father is presumably down with all the monstrously criminal other things rightwingers do, and if he didn't CD himself he'd join them in rabidly hating those who CD too. The only reason he isn't a piece of putrid shit on this issue (or for all we know maybe he is, maybe he publicly reviles crossdressers) is because in this case he is who he would have hated. Fuck you, LW's dad.

Am I telling LW to out his dad? No, I'm not.

Sadly, father’s politics and a need to project masculinity are not that uncommon among closet crossdressers/nonbinaries, a similar phenomenon to that of closet homosexuals’ anti-gay rhetoric.
I still think the son should stay out of this.

I think a lot of people here aren't really thinking about just how repressed and conservative many folks are. Discovering something like this about your husband could be shocking to the point of turning your entire conception of the world upside down. Remember, this is someone who is a devout Republican, very masculine, in a 40 year marriage, and we know less about the wife, but what sort of woman stays with a man like that? My guess is that the wife is completely in shock and needing to understand how the same man, a devout masculine Republican, is also a decades-long cross dresser in secret. We can shrug our shoulders and say it's no big deal, but it's totally normal that the wife would need to take some time away to gather her thoughts. And there's nothing weird about her going far away- he says she took a trip to visit a friend which is normal when someone is dealing with a shock or a massive change, the friend just happens to live elsewhere.

Thing that stands out to me is that the mom told the son she found out two years ago while they were on vacation. No indication of how long before that the mom had found out and taken her short trip to visit the friend, but it happened before she told the son two years ago. So mom has known about this for over two years, has already been back with the dad for over two years (the trip to friend was short).

Mom asked LW to "talk to dad" about it while they were on vacation after she'd discovered it, after she'd taken the break, after she'd returned home. And the LW sat on this for two years, and is now writing Dan to say "hey what should I do?" Weird.

I'd say #1 Clarify whether or not mom even still wants you to talk about it- two years after she asked you to. #2 Clarify what it is she wants you to say at all.

I'm down with Dan's interpretation of the scenario and his advice to SOACD. One question though. When Dan states "it might've been better for all if your dad had been open about his cross-dressing with his wife and kid(s)," I have to ask: don't innocent family bystanders have a right to, uh, not know?

BTW I disagree that it's necessarily a 'mind your own business' situation. The father doesn't know the wife knows. He's a devout masc Republican conservative with decades of secrets. It's possible he could not handle the knowledge that his wife knows this about him- it could be devastating- and he might be more receptive to a conversation with a man about it.

That's why I said the son needs to clarify WHY the mom wants her to talk to him about it and what she wants him to say. I don't think we can dismiss it off hand as mind your own business without knowing that.

Just speculation because we know nothing:

Maybe mom found "evidence" that others could find too (online pictures? gossip?). Dad might need to know he's vulnerable. Maybe mom is worried dad is full of shame and needs to sort out some issues and needs someone to talk to- she is his loving partner and would have a better idea than we do if he's harming himself. This would not even require son to reveal that mom knows. He can just tell the honest story about how he found out and ask if dad needs to talk. Maybe mom is trying to save dad the humiliation of knowing his wife knows while still giving him the opportunity to talk to someone or receive whatever information it is he needs to receive. Maybe mom is worried he could be doing something harmful and would like clarification to set her own mind at ease and is trying to get that info without revealing that she knows. Her anxiety counts too, even if it seems minor to us. It's easy to say it's none of son's business and it should just be left up to these married people but it's just as likely that the wife is trying to find a way to communicate what while sparing the husband's feelings here.

@24 I'm with you. If one of my parents asked me for help in this way, I'd try to clarify what they are trying to achieve, rather than simply running the other direction. I would probably try to direct them towards therapy, but I would also spend a lot of time talking with them because they need the support of close family.

The LW sees his parents a couple of times a year. So he embarrasses his dad then walks away. The whole hidden part might be as big a turn on for dad as the cross dressing and mom has had two yrs of knowing. They have found a way round it. It’s their marriage, their forty years together. I say they because by now he might know she knows thru marriage osmosis and that’s how they want their lives to be.
If one of my sons or daughter came to me assuming any right to talk about my sex life, I’d close them down real quick. I don’t involve myself with their sex lives.

Anyone who wants a one-party-power-in-perpetuity government deserves to get it.

Just reading "a devout Republican" made me want to LMB. And, even if mom is a staunch member of the Ladies' Auxiliary of Devout Republicans, I still feel sorry for her. She probably feels betrayed, knowing dad is not as "masculine" as he pretends to be, especially if it conflicts with her own complementary views of appropriate (Republican) behaviour of men and women.

Might she even think that perhaps dad might turn out to be one of those ::whispers:: Transgender "deviants" who want to pee in the next stall to young girls, etc.? ... The kind of people who don't deserve any legal recognition or protection?

We don't know any of that, obviously; neither does the LW. He should have shut down the request when mom made it two years ago. He's more with it and could have suggested she read up on CD to allay any fears, etc. And he should have suggested she talk to a (non-devout non-Republican) counselor about how to deal with her future life with her husband.

A perfect answer from Dan. Further, the LW doesn't much want to have this conversation. He notes he sees his parents twice a year. Why disturb that, raking up something he's known for 20 years? Why force a bra-and-suspenders on a sleeping dog?

@3. Dadddy. Also completely correct.

@10. nightscrawl. It's very unlikely the lw's father has done anything sexual beyond put on women's clothes and make-up.

I don't really see the cross-dressing father as a hypocrite. He cross-dressed in private as a release valve, so he could go on being the imperturbable authority figure in public life--and not just that, in his traditional marriage to his wife.

@29 Harriet_by_the_bulrushes
"I don't really see the cross-dressing father as a hypocrite."

(While I agree that a little extrapolation is required, without restating what I wrote about a rightwinger like the father @20...)

Harriet, when (he or) one of his Nazi friends brings up CD while burning a cross in the woods somewhere, what do you think he would say?
(Before you answer re-read CMDwannabe@21.)

What we can extrapolate he would say would make him a hypocrite.

He does this in hotel rooms and corresponds with other men about it using a secret PO Box address.

The LW doesn't tell us what the mom's concern is, but my guess is that she's worried that he's having sex with other men, which doesn't strike me as an irrational concern.

If I'm right about that, should she ask her husband herself? That would probably be ideal, but I'm not going to get all judgey if she's upset about this and thinks her son could do a better job of getting her the information she wants.

@30. curious. I don't think a traditional Republican is necessarily a Nazi.

Personal self-determination, 'live-and-let-live', small government, the nearest and most accessible level of decision-making authority, fiscal rectitude, a preference for the tested over the experimental, loyalty, patriotism, self-sacrifice--all these are noble ideals. Older Republicans, culturally conservative people themselves, and with economic reasons for being on the right, are caught in the crossfire of a culture war between, effectively, a Koch-Brothers-and-Proud-Boys alliance and us post-60s cultural liberals. Sometimes decent, thoughtful, steady people, they're often given pause by Trump, but can't bring themselves to vote for his opponent--who seems to be setting up against everything they hold dear.

It would be much better for liberals (and leftists) if we didn't give the impression we deplore, and look down on, folks like the lw's father.

Also, vanilla people have the right to define who they want to be intimate with too.

If a woman identifies as straight, but considers transwomen with penises valid partners and transmen without them as not being consistent with their one-penis-one-vagina form of heterosexuality, guess what? She has that right.

If that's the case and dad always knew about it, why would anyone question her right to be upset. And if a woman defines her sexuality in terms of having a heterosexual and male-presenting manly penis-haver as a partner? Yeah. That's her right too.

Finally if, as nightcrawl @10 suggests, it's possible that they're in a companionate marriage because dad is now and always has been gay (not bi) and mom is concerned that her whole relationship with the man was based on a lie, she absolutely has a right to seek that information out and also has a right to be really upset about the situation.
And, if she thinks she couldn't ask the questions she wants asked and the son can do so with no undue trauma (yes, that's an "if"), I have no beef with her asking her son to ask dad the questions mom wants answered and see if her husband is willing to answer.

Yeah. Vanilla cis straight people shouldn't look down on or harass the queer, trans, CD, kinky or whatever people of the Earth, but they are allowed to have preferences about who their partners are and to be upset if they find out that their partners are not who they presented themselves as.

Harriet @32, Amen.

The Republican party was long a legitimate political movement that sane people could support for reasons other than hate. As for the present party, there are probably still some decent people who are so put off by the alternatives that they still think of themselves as Republicans despite all the evil being done by that party.

With current Republicans, it's that same guilt-by-association situation we've heard of so many times before: It's just the 99% of rotten-apple Republicans that make the rest look bad.

Maybe I'm exaggerating and it's only 97% that are vile hateful bigots.

@32 Harriet_by_the_bulrushes
"I don't think a traditional Republican..." (I snipped "Nazi" because with that I obviously was making a joke.)

You made up the word TRADITIONAL in your head, Harriet.

He describes the father as a "DEVOUT Republican". Devout is a crucial word in rightwing psychological analysis; it means they are an 'authoritarian follower'(1).

I don't think I'm making too much of the LW's word choice, because it fits perfectly with the 25% of populations who will believe and do anything their authoritarian leader tells them. One great book on this subject explained "Many of them would attack France, Massachusetts, or the moon if the [conservative] president said it was necessary 'for freedom'."(2)

Devout in the context of Republicans todays implies one of these people who buys the whole evil package on blind faith. The whole evil package is evil. Voting for evil isn't speech, it's an evil action because it puts into power people who do evil. People who cage babies and children. Did you know Trump enacted a policy of killing sick children?(3)

If they can't bring themselves to vote against Trump then I say 'fuck you' to them, and my saying that is deeply deserved.

"It would be much better for liberals (and leftists) if we didn't give the impression we deplore, and look down on, folks like the lw's father."

Another thing I learned from (2) is that:
"The 'conservative' movement is composed of various factions who actually share very little in common in the way of political beliefs and could not come close to agreeing on a core set of political principles... what, then, binds them... is the shared hatred of common enemies... the Terrorist, the Communist, the Illegal Immigrant, the Secularist, and most of all, the "Liberal"."

In other words, the only unifying principle of the Right is hating us! And never ever ever compromising with us; they are at War with us. Given that, how in the world is it better if I don't admit that I deplore their actions?

I do applaud your compassion, but I don't think your counsel to me has been well-founded.

(1)
a technical term I'm using based upon my readings about Germany in the 30's and 40's, and research done in the early sixties to try to figure out what the fuck had happened to Germany

(2)
https://www.amazon.com/Conservatives-Without-Conscience-John-Dean/dp/0143038869/ (This book does a great job of summarizing that research done in the early sixties

(3)
independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-immigration-border-cancer-children-healthcare-deport-a9080601.html
The US had a program allowing dying kids receiving treatment not available in their home countries, without which they would die, to be in the US. Trump cancelled it in a letter essentially telling parents their kids would be deported to die in a month.

Many of these kids only came to the US because they were sought out/recruited/invited here by research hospitals because they have diseases so rare that they were needed as research subjects to help the hospitals find cures.

Last I heard a temporary hold was put on Trump's efforts to kill these kids.

Why did Trump do this? I think because it pissed us off, thus directly rewarding his followers whose fundamental motivation is hate of us. (And my saying or not saying whatever won't change that.)

Harriet, I don't know how much time you spend talking to older traditional Republicans, but you are giving them far more credit than they deserve. They fall into three camps. 1) people who generally aren't paying attention, disengaged, people for whom the system mostly isn't working and who have good reason to not vote Democrat but also haven't thought too much about what the Republicans are. 2) People who are bitter with racism and resentment, freaked out about losing their cultural hegemony. 3) People who understand that the pro-business stance of the Reps is good for their personal material conditions and wealth, and everyone else can be screwed.

The LW, a devout Republican his whole life, is unlikely to be in category 1. Religious conservatives likewise are unlikely to be in category 1.

Leftists and liberals should re-evaluate what the Dems have done wrong in recent years to lose the folks in category 1 and how to address their true grievances and improve their material conditions. But everyone else, all those category 2 & 3 people, deserve no attention nor respect whatsoever. This is not about "looking down" on people, it's about taking power from them. Liberals need to drop their superior attitude altogether, especially as they have absolutely failed in recent decades and have nothing to be so smug about. But that does not mean the majority of devout Republicans deserve even an iota of respect.

Sporty @19, I thought this "why exactly do you need to leave the house?" sounded a bit sinister, like she's a prisoner? Your follow-up makes it clear that you think she should be. Why on earth shouldn't she visit a friend? No, you can't talk about this face to face. Stay in this prison and deal with it in the constant presence of the person who's generated this issue in the first place. No few days for you to clear your head and get some perspective, nope! Shudder. Thank goodness her husband was a bit more understanding and "let" her have her visit.

Harriet @29, he's a hypocrite because he belongs to a party that wants to deny LGBT people their rights, but as a cross-dresser he is on the genderqueer spectrum himself. His deviation from cishet norms is OK, but others' are not and should be punished. Hypocrite.

Yeah, the timeline is a bit weird here. Mom tells son two years ago. Son writes to Dan now. It seems to make sense that Mom told son two years ago, but only recently asked him to speak with Dad, that there were two different conversations. Either way, yes, son should say "I'm happy to be your sounding board about this but I won't talk to Dad about it unless he brings it up."

@36 EmmaLiz
I think that #2 are the authoritarian followers.[1]

I guess #3 is the 1%.

I think #1 aren't /registered/ Republican ("As of October 2017, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrat, 24% identified as Republican, and 42% as Independent."[2] I think many could easily prefer a populist Dem.

"... it's about taking power from them."

Agreed. Given that they will never compromise, removing them from power is the only possible way for the interests of all the people to be served.

"Liberals...have absolutely failed in recent decades..."

Again agreed. (Er I think; I believe "liberal" now means moderate aka the middle of the political spectrum. As for the left, they've failed forever to even /be/ in power)

Clinton and Obama made progressive promises but had ineffective moderate policies, serving to teach people that Dems are hopeless. Obama's broken promises of hope and change threaten to remove hope such promises would be believed again. And Obama was a terrible negotiator, each time the uncompromising opposition took the country hostage he gave in with an empty promise not to do so the 'next' time.

[1]
According to studies: they are highly compliant with social conventions, pro-conformity. Feel safer in the presence of powerful authorities. Often highly religious, zealous, dogmatic, moralistic, moderate to little education, narrow-minded, intolerant, highly prejudiced, hostile and bigoted towards minorities, bullying, mean-spirited, severely punitive, panic easily. Against freedom, anti-equality, anti-democratic, cold-blooded, ruthless, amoral, power-hungry, proto-fascist, Machiavellian, liars. Narrowly limited by inability to see the world from any other point of view. Have very little self-awareness. Do not realize as undesirable any of the many things research has discovered about them, and in the inverse of the reality, think they are "the good people". Have very compartmentalized minds, so they can suppress whatever they wish, whenever.

[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states

I have known maybe two truly "fiscal" conservatives in my life.

Most of the Republicans I happen to know are single-issue voters. They are religious Jews who believe the right is better for Israel. That's it.

Not to drag another issue in here, but I just want to say that while I have experienced some anti-Semitism on the left (it's not ubiquitous, but it's there, I've seen it personally), * most * liberals largely seem interested in peace and equality for Israel and Palestine (which should be two different countries). What's really better for Israel -- letting the wildly conservative government there run rampant with ultimately self-destructive policies, or truly pursuing a compromise?

@41 CalliopeMuse
"They are religious Jews who believe the right is better for Israel."

One of the weirdest things about that, is the Christian Religious Right's primary motivation for defending Israel comes of dogma that Israel plays some (sorry I forget the specifics) role in the biblical End of the World that of course doesn't turn out well for jewish people who they believe are excluded from imaginary heaven. So they're just using the Jewish State (for that among other things).

You're right Muse, just about everything isn't just on one side. I think some people on the left don't understand that they've become so angry at Israeli military policy that it's turned into anti-Semitism. But honestly I've personally encountered more people who say that criticizing Israeli policy is by definition anti-semitic.

"I think some people on the left don't understand that they've become so angry at Israeli military policy that it's turned into anti-Semitism."

Look there is bigotry everywhere, but I doubt there are many American leftists who were not antisemites who then later became that way because of their opposition to US military, financial and intelligence support of the IDF or their opposition to the IDF training our own local police. It's far more likely that people who started out as anti-semites happened to have gained a sense of anti-imperialism or class consciousness without quite rooting out their bigotries so they still pop up when discussing US foreign policy.

I think this is especially true of the American left. Jews are more likely to identify as liberal than conservative in the US, and the American left has always been full of Jewish leadership & scholars. In my experience, one of the reasons that the American left talks so much about zionism is because there are so many American Jewish leftists writing about it. But that's a minor point.

More generally, the American left focuses so much on Israel and Saudi Arabia for the same reasons: both are oppressive governments that the US funds/arms/trains/supports and both are key states in larger US imperialist projects and both have very well established and well funded lobbyists in DC influencing legislation, weapons deals and politicians. Israel's and Saudi Arabia's central roles in the US imperialist project is what makes American activists focus on them. If you don't understand this, then it perhaps looks random that the left keeps talking about these two states, and you might then consider antisemitism for a reason as to why leftists seem to go on so much about Israel. After all the world is full of oppression, and I'm also opposed to the oppression of the Rohingya or the refugees in Assam or prisoners in Nauru etc. But my government is not as directly involved in those situations as it is with the violence in Palestine and Yemen, etc. Israel's wars are American wars.

And while it is true that antisemitism is alive and well (just look at some of the mass shootings), it's also used as a way to shut down conversations about American imperialism, as are American politicians' claims that a two-state solution is even possible without massive changes. Israeli politicians no longer even pretend. I personally don't know enough about it to have any strong opinions, but I think (?) the American left currently tends to favor a binational one state solution. Ideally it's Palestinians and Israelis who will decide, not American leftists, but then it's tricky to disentangle how the two states are dependent upon one another. I'm personally happy to leave it to smarter people, but I'm not required to have an opinion on the future of Israel to oppose the IDF training my own local cops and my government sharing intelligence with Mossad and my politicians taking money from AIPAC, etc. See?

@43 EmmaLiz
I skimmed enough of that to ask:
Please don't agree with me and then ask "See?". I mean I beat you to your whole point with my closing sentence @42.

I used to personally know a couple people who (exactly as I said is true of "some") were not anti-semitic before the leftism you and I share (which is why I could feel free to just skim @43) with them made them anti-semitic. Of course they also had significant mental issues, so for all I know maybe you're right that this isn't a thing. (FWIW I think they are also jewish.) Anyway, I think this means they just need to have pre-existing psychological issues, not necessarily including anti-semitism.

p.s. @44
I wrote "my closing sentence @42" because it absolutely bugs the shit out of me that so many people are eager to mindlessly claim that people with the sort of appropriate opposition to behavior by nations like (the US and) Israel (opposition I agree with so thoroughly that I couldn't bear reading you identify it at me when I'm sure I share them) are anti-semitic. It's mindless B.S. that they call thinking politically aware people that.

Incidentally, nothing personal. I haven't read more than a few relevant books by Chomsky, either, I quickly got bored silly of him telling me nothing I didn't already know. Speaking of which one of my old friends with mental issues somehow engaged Chomsky in an extended personal correspondence; I found it pretty amazing that Noam made time for that with all the work he put out.

Curious, I'm sure you realize that not all conversations are arguments nor that a long post is not solely in response to things you said nor is an utterance asking if you "see" what someone means (note the question mark) an implication of disagreement. Finally, it's up to you to skim or read or ignore or respond after only reading parts (this is how the internet works) but I don't really see the point in responding to things I don't read. I just ignore them or skip over them for another time. You can do as you like, but I can't really respond to your response in response to mine that you didn't read as it just seems an exercise in miscommunication.

Likewise, you did not beat me to my point since you said nothing at all about the left's focus on Israel being because of the US funding/arming of Israel. A point that was likewise lost on Bari Weiss today when she complained that the left focuses more on Israeli treatment of Palestinians than on Chinese treatment of Uighurs. It seems she does not realize that the US aids Israel's oppression and not China's. (In fact, the opposite, see CIA re: Hong Kong, but that's another topic). I was not suggesting Curious that you disagreed with me, but rather elaborating on your point- rather than just saying "antisemitism is not the same thing as antizionism" (which was your point best I can tell), one can also point to the actual reasons for lefty focus on Israel- and I offered two.

@35. curious. You are right that being a 'devout' Republican implies something different than being a 'traditional' Republican.

We don't know what the lw's father is devout about.... At a pinch, it could be budgetary rectitude. But usually the word (as you say) suggests endorsements of attitudes of religious execration towards e.g. abortion or non-normative lifestyles, sometimes gay or poly.

I'm still not 100% on whether a secret Republican cross-dresser is a hypocrite. His view could be that some things--which he would indeed see as forms of deviance--are better behind closed doors, and that everyone has a right to a private life. (The last is a very right-liberal view).

@36. Emma. I agree with your analysis of what liberals must do to win back the first group. And you are right that someone 'devout' in their politics is engaged, even in a judgmental way, not disengaged. Possibly I think there are many more people than you do, even people who are broadly conservative in their habits, conventional in their lifestyles, who might vote Democrats if they didn't feel Dems were dismissive of, sneered at, their choices (e.g. stay-at-home mothers). That is, it's not their prejudices or blind spots they feel are dismissed by the left--like only knowing people of one race; seeing fault or failure in marital breakups; finding gay people out of ordinary--but positive choices, of which they feel proud, like personal loyalty, patriotism, being around for their children, staying in difficult marriages, other forms of self-sacrifice.

@38. Bi. I'm not sure whether there is a spectrum of 'trans' (crossdressers--transvestites--trans / NB / GQ people). Old-style 'crossdressers' often present as uber-male in their ordinary lives, as military officers, macho business execs etc.--hewing to punitive norms of male competence and invulnerability. Does this make them very male or does the secret cross-dressing make them trans? To me, it's moot.

You still may be right about the guy's hypocrisy in supporting a party militarising 'trans' for culture-war purposes.

I would think the idea that Jews cannot help oppressing Arabs--such that any possible Zionist state is illegitimate--an anti-Semitic view. It's racism, pure and simple. You certainly find the view among European leftists.

EmmaLiz
@46
First, sorry I even mentioned not reading much (past the 2nd paragraph)...

@47
particularly because looking back at the last sentence of that paragraph, I see it doesn't say the same thing as the earlier sentence of mine I pointed you to. I think I read your "It's far more likely that" and hit eject before realizing that what you went on with was different that what I said "I've personally encountered more people who..." about.

@46
"I'm sure you realize that not all conversations are arguments"

Your honor, I plead guilty to usually not realizing that. I think more than just about anyone here...except you EL (lol!). I know you know that you like to debate as much as anyone. As (almost) do I.

@43
"it's also used as a way to shut down conversations about American imperialism"

Oh wait I think maybe this is the sentence that I thought echoed my closing @42 with "more people who say that criticizing Israeli policy is by definition anti-semitic". I'm afraid that this fact we both stated makes me so crazy that my reply to you wasn't rational.

@47
"you did not beat me to my point since you said nothing at all about..."

Yes, I had hit eject at that point. I just meant I had already agreed shutting down conversations (by calling them anti-semetic).

"...rather elaborating on your point- rather than just saying "antisemitism is not the same thing as antizionism" (which was your point best I can tell)"

I think the word "antizionism" fits our point better than I said it, nice.

EL, part of why I went nuts is that something happened IRL that pissed me off last week; I'm sorry, I owe you an apology. I also owe Harriet one...

@48 Harriet_by_the_bulrushes
"...that everyone has a right to a private life. (The last is a very right-liberal view)."

I hope there are still some of those.

As a leftist, I find it interesting that quite a few freedom-focused positions are shared between the extreme left and the extreme right. Electorally, I think that can help the Dems if they don't nominate one of their centrists. Oh, that reminds me:

/BREAK/

I saw a recent CBS newsclip present a few numbers breaking down Dem voters' 2nd choice candidates that are encouraging for Warren. For example, who would most Dems "consider" voting for? (Warren 60%, Biden next at 50%) Here's a number from a month ago: "60% of voters considering Bernie Sanders are also considering Elizabeth Warren, while only 43% of voters considering Warren are also considering Sanders."

@48 Harriet_by_the_bulrushes
"I think there are many more people than you do, even people who are broadly conservative in their habits, conventional in their lifestyles, who might vote Democrats if they didn't feel Dems were dismissive of, sneered at, their choices"

Which Dems?
I mean, why should it matter to them what voters think, shouldn't it only matter what the candidates think?

(Er, as I went on about @35, as for they're caring about what Dem voters think, yes that does matter because the 25% of countries who are rightwing authoritarians are fundamentally motivated by hating us...but they do so regardless of what we say.)

p.s. "as for they're caring"
Er, "their". Let the vocabulary police hang me at sunrise.

I'd say the grammar police have jurisdiction over this one.

Let us all pray that Israel will not vote that man back in. C’mon Israel, you don’t need to do this. Such barbarity.
/ Harriet, it’s hypocrital because the dad is following a political party which mouths off about family values. Cross dressing not being one of them. He’s a big fat liar, to himself and his country. His story, his karma.

Hypocritical. Hypocritical.

@53. Lava. Yes, I've conceded that point--more on the transphobia of the bathroom laws in e.g. Georgia than 'family values' generally.

@50. curious. In the European countries in which I've lived, the left has been more socially authoritarian than the right. Not in the sense of rank, objectionable racism--which is more the preserve of the New Right--but in terms of making a broad pitch in terms of conformity, propriety, 'be-like-us', intolerance of deviants like homosexuals, transfolk, individualists, intellectuals (in western Europe, however, atheists have always been on the left).

I think many people vote as part of big identity blocs, not because they have made any fine-grained assessment of the candidates at all.

@55 Harriet_by_the_bulrushes
I think there's a qualitative difference between authoritarian people (psychologically), and authoritarian social politics.

But actually I agree both are not restricted to the right (despite the research showing that they the psychology is). I had a centrist-Dem family member who took a thoroughly authoritarian-follower role WRT any Dem POTUS, purely revelling in hate towards their opposition, not engaging in any thinking about policy. And I'm amazed at how anti-freedom it is when a leftist city I won't name legislates against smoking tobacco at outdoor bus stops (yes it's a vile fatal habit, but the Earth's atmosphere is really big, and no one forces me to stand downwind of a smoker in the great outdoors).

Ugh, why are so many crossdressers hardcore Republicans? It's a thing, and it's completely baffling.

I agree with Dan's advice, just had to bitch about politics.

@57 Marenna - swingers too, sadly. Easy to screen them out though, just mention Dan.

My understanding is that CD's are typically (definitionally?) straight - if you're talking straight men that's a group that trends R, plus it's not a fun taboo if it's ok to do it. Wouldn't give liberal men quite the same intensity of thrill I think. Same with the extremely depressing racial BBC shit I'd bet. And all that old timey nun porn.

That too Harriet. Transphobia, homophobia, think women should stay in their lane. That’s the lane Republican men designate for them. Full of deceit in other words.

White nationalists.. how could any decent Republican, in a broader sense of decent,
stick with a party Trump and McConnell are
part of.
LW, I think it’s best for your mental health
to stay out of it. People pick up energies, let your dad non verbally get your messages. Parents like to have their children’s respect.
Bottom line is, you can’t change old/er people easily. He’s your dad and love him for how he’s been for you.