When 2 groups have spring from the same ideology ("maximal sexual autonomy") and share tactical continuity, drawing distinctions between them is splitting hairs.
Andrew Sullivan and Bari Weiss and many others seem to think they can just go back to a nice, sane, mid-2000's, gay friendly liberalism. It can't happen. Liberalism has been a liberationist ideology since the Enlightenment. The basic premise is that all unchosen constraints are illegitimate, and biology is a largest unchosen constraint. In hindsight, the Enlightenment appears to have been seeded trans-sexualism and eventually trans-humanism from the beginning.
I do not agree the LGB is parent to the T. It is more correct to say that the T, like the Blob, absorbs absolutely everything it touches, including progressive Christianity, Marxism, postmodernism, media, civil rights orgs, AIDS charities, intersex charities, etc etc. Men were attempting gruesome vivisectional experiments on themselves first, came up with the metaphysics later, got funded at a very particular and important moment after Obergefell, and took over the world of liberal politics.
As suggested by the author, but not stated quite this way, gay rights and in particular same-sex marriage triumphed by promoting the notion that there is no substantial difference between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships and sexuality. (Nor for that matter between gays and lesbians.) This is patent nonsense, and can only make logical sense if we accept that there aren't substantial differences between males and females in their sexuality and their social relationships. As the author notes, an older generation of gay-rights advocates admitted and indeed embraced the different natures of heterosexual and homosexual relations. Downplaying or altogether denying the differences made strategic sense in fighting against discrimination and for marriage rights. But it has had a chilling effect on honest communication about sex and sexuality.
Transgenderism has built upon this embourgeoisement of sexual minorities. At the same time, it obviously has a very confused and contradictory relationship to the question of differences between the sexes, insisting that they are both nothing and everything.
A good piece, but what's missing from discussion -- the influence of the astounding inflows of money to HRC, ACLU, etc from trans billionaires like Martine Rothblatt, Jennifer Pritzker (cousin of Illinois gov., obscenely wealthy and politically connected). A coterie of wealthy AGPs (and gay men, it must be said) have filled the coffers of HRC, GLAAD, and the ACLU. See Jennifer Bilek.
An excellent piece with more than echoes in history. When polio was eradicated, the March of Dimes had to decide whether to close up shop or keep going by focusing on other childhood ailments. They chose to stay together - keeping the societal purchase and their own livelihoods secure - rather than declare victory and close up shop. True, March of Dimes is a very good group that does good work, but the near-inevitability of this kind of shift is quite common in the caring industry - I go a little bit more into it this piece - https://thomas699.substack.com/p/the-cult-of-safety
Great piece, and your graphic doesn’t do the trajectory justice. Already, we have polyamorists and polyandrists at work to future “broaden” (dumb down) the definition of “marriage.” It’s only a matter of time when well have to apologize to fundamentalist mormons, and NAMBLA is resurrected as legitimate (wait, we’re already there) and people wonder why they can’t marry their dogs, cats, cars, and motorcycles. Don’t scoff. We are truly living in a narcissistic world.
I agree with the way you have identified the tactics of the transgender movement as common to the previous LGB campaigns. However tactics are not enough to explain the rise of transgenderism.
Same sex marriage normalised transgender ideology by delinking marriage and family from biology. Marriage forms the archetype for sexual role and function. First the female becomes Wife and the Male becomes Husband. Then the Female reaches full expression as Mother. Male reaches full expression as Father. They have their children, the children have a Mother and a Father. This was the norm for the entirety of human Civilization until the last few decades - despite the progressive media’s lame attempts at pretending otherwise.
By degendering marriage progressives have degendered sexual roles. They have destroyed the archetypes of male and female which were already threatened by LGB activism but still reached full expression in marriage. Now there is nothing left. Being male or female is nothing more than a feeling. It is in this society meaningless as an archetype or a function or role.
In this way transgenderism is female liberation/feminism at full expression. “You can be anything you want to be” irrespective of biology. “Woman can do anything men can do”. Feminism created the distinction between biology as sex and social role as gender and made it its mission - having created a division which previously did not exist - to smash any causative link between the two.
Although curiously never have grown women been portrayed as so pathetic and lacking in agency as they are now. Woman are encouraged to think their life failures are inevitably the result of some consensual interaction they had decades prior which they now regret and hence was never consensual.
Western Civilisation is built fundamentally on the Family. That conceptual family has now all but been destroyed. Western Civilization will collapse unless by some miracle that previous order can be restored. No amount of wealth, or resources or military power will save Western Civilization if it cannot save the family.
I have met more than a few gay individuals from the “we are just like everyone else except for our sexuality and just want to just be left alone” time almost unable to comprehend the modern LGBT+(insert alphabet here) movement.
The term natural is being used equivocally here. Sure homosexuality is natural in the sense that it can be observed in nature. It is not natural in the sense that, for a species that reproduces sexually, the natural i.e. proper or teleological orientation of sex is purely heterosexual. Anything else is an error, even if that error is 10% of the population it is still unnatural in that sense. Obviously doesn't mean people should be oppressed or hated or harmed. But it is what it is. Truth is paramount.
The trans cult (a term I remember first using) is similar to what a movement of Rachel Dolezal-types (Euro-descent women pretending to be Black for profit, attention, narcissism, etc.) would be if there were more of them and they invaded the African-descent community in large entitled numbers. But Rachel was dealt with quickly and firmly. One of the only fools (a Euro-descent woman of course) to defend her as being sincere in thinking she was Black, hadn't known Rachel had previously sued Howard University for "discriminating" against her as a white woman.
I'm told that privileged whites faking being Black is not the same as privileged het men and women pretending to be Lesbians or gay men, etc., so shut up. But it's very similar, and it is no more the fault of African-American culture, activism, politics, community, or people that created parasites like Rachel Dolezal than it is the fault of Lesbians for why het men to obsess about us, stalk us, demand access to us, threaten us, or murder us for over 50 years. (I'm still being stalked by the same man who went after me when I was 17, but, though doxxed, I haven't been murdered, yet, unlike other Lesbians in Oakland.)
I'm focusing on Lesbians here because I'm a Lesbian, and as we wrote in our book, Dykes-Loving-Dykes, (published in 1990), our community and lives have been very different and separate from gay men, on many levels. (Even though men still try to speak for us.)
From what I can see, this trans mania benefits primarily het men (who are who most decide to be "Lesbians" or who want nothing in the way of "transitioning," to keep their options open, just as judges, like the one who sentenced serial killer, Ted Bundy, wished him well.)
Lesbians deciding they are men are another issue, having to do with wanting more privilege in patriarchy where women are still expected to look like drag queens limping about in order to get many jobs. But what many ignore, in spite of the stereotypes, is that most of the women demanding to be accepted as "transmen" are feminine het women, for status and fetish. (Look at the "before" photos in Loren Cameron's book, Body Alchemy. She killed herself last year.)
Another major ignored factor in this mess is porn and especially sado-masochism. The queen of sadism, Pat Califia, Fem bisexual who claimed to be Butch, Lesbian, and then a gay man, brought sado-masochistic fetish into my Lesbian community directly from the gay men she worshipped and now claims to be. Anyone watching the early conferences and booklets that promoted the trans cult to women and Lesbians can see the connection clearly, from using pseudo-Lesbian feminist jargon to the non-consensual "scenes."
And then there are the liberal, mostly class-privileged women (and yes, some Lesbians), who jumped right in to defend and promote who they were told were far more oppressed than they could ever be, even though no one is truly "trans," and "trans" are primarily a very privileged group of het men, het women and class-privileged Lesbian. (Not all but most.) Now of course they have indoctrinated children, further muddying the issue.
"Gender affirming care" is the gay conversion therapy from hell. It's astounding the number of affluent gays who are totally oblivious to what is happening around them. They repeat every trans/journalistic cliche....about all the medical association and about suicide rates, etc. And become belligerent if contradicted.
Understand that many of these people are big $$$ donors to the big organization. But supporting them is coded blue, and taking issue with their agendas coded red.
The goal of the gay rights movement, from the start, was to destroy "heterosexism," the older word for heteronormativity. That has consequences. Just saying.
(If you don't believe me google the name "Craig Rodwell".)
LBGTQ.... has been around forever. Why suddenly has it become so important. They are a very small minority in the population.
In my opinion, this is a top down movement and not grass roots. Big money is behind this and it's being forced down our throats. You'd better believe big money is investing heavily in "gender affirming care" related equities. Same goes for "climate change".
The trans cult (a term I remember first using) is similar to what a movement of Rachel Dolezal-types (Euro-descent women pretending to be Black for profit, attention, narcissism, etc.) would be if there were more of them and they invaded the African-descent community in large entitled numbers. But Rachel was dealt with quickly and firmly. One of the only fools (a Euro-descent woman of course) to defend her as being sincere in thinking she was Black, hadn't known Rachel had previously sued Howard University for "discriminating" against her as a white woman.
I'm told that privileged whites faking being Black is not the same as privileged het men and women pretending to be Lesbians or gay men, etc., so shut up. But it's very similar, and it is no more the fault of African-American culture, activism, politics, community, or people that created parasites like Rachel Dolezal than it is the fault of Lesbians for why het men to obsess about us, stalk us, demand access to us, threaten us, or murder us for over 50 years. (I'm still being stalked by the same man who went after me when I was 17, but, though doxxed, I haven't been murdered, yet, unlike other Lesbians in Oakland.)
I'm focusing on Lesbians here because I'm a Lesbian, and as we wrote in our book, Dykes-Loving-Dykes, (published in 1990), our community and lives have been very different and separate from gay men, on many levels. (Even though men still try to speak for us.)
From what I can see, this trans mania benefits primarily het men (who are who most decide to be "Lesbians" or who want nothing in the way of "transitioning," to keep their options open, just as judges, like the one who sentenced serial killer, Ted Bundy, wished him well.)
Lesbians deciding they are men are another issue, having to do with wanting more privilege in patriarchy where women are still expected to look like drag queens limping about in order to get many jobs. But what many ignore, in spite of the stereotypes, is that most of the women demanding to be accepted as "transmen" are feminine het women, for status and fetish. (Look at the "before" photos in Loren Cameron's book, Body Alchemy. She killed herself last year.)
Another major ignored factor in this mess is porn and especially sado-masochism. The queen of sadism, Pat Califia, Fem bisexual who claimed to be Butch, Lesbian, and then a gay man, brought sado-masochistic fetish into my Lesbian community directly from the gay men she worshipped and now claims to be. Anyone watching the early conferences and booklets that promoted the trans cult to women and Lesbians can see the connection clearly, from using pseudo-Lesbian feminist jargon to the non-consensual "scenes."
And then there are the liberal, mostly class-privileged women (and yes, some Lesbians), who jumped right in to defend and promote who they were told were far more oppressed than they could ever be, even though no one is truly "trans," and "trans" are primarily a very privileged group of het men, het women and class-privileged Lesbian. (Not all but most.) Now of course they have indoctrinated children, further muddying the issue.
1) What societies are you referring to? Afghanistan for example? Yes, I am fairly sure divorce is rare there as is any semblance of equality between the sexes 2) the fact that some societies have a cultural prohibition against divorce simply means the form of the contract is preserved, it says nothing about the culture’s ‘morality’ or the quality of the marriage 3) what is moral about a woman who is forced by custom or fear to stay in a marriage where she is beaten, where her children are beaten, where her husband cheats on her, where she has no life of her own, where she is threatened with death if she tries to leave? According to the UN 87,000 women are murdered each year by male domestic partners.
There are power differences between men and women, physical, social and, in some societies, legal,
and very definitely in terms of a sense of entitlement. It is unbelievably naive to think those differences don’t play out, sometimes in extreme ways, in the nature/quality of heterosexual relationships, whether those are intimate relationships such as marriage or relationships like members of sports teams. That is precisely what we are seeing in this trans lunacy. The stupefying arrogance of a gaggle of men in skirts telling women who and what and how we should be and their entitled demanding that everyone just do as they say. WTF!!
There are reason why heterosexual marriages fail at an alarming rate. No, it is not necessarily or only because they are heterosexual. But if you refuse to look at the social, cultural and economic dynamics of heterosexuality and how those impact marriage, then divorce rates will simply continue their ever skyward climb.
Lastly, cui bono? Who benefits from all this social destruction and divisiveness? That is where the action and anger is properly directed rather than toward one another.
When 2 groups have spring from the same ideology ("maximal sexual autonomy") and share tactical continuity, drawing distinctions between them is splitting hairs.
Andrew Sullivan and Bari Weiss and many others seem to think they can just go back to a nice, sane, mid-2000's, gay friendly liberalism. It can't happen. Liberalism has been a liberationist ideology since the Enlightenment. The basic premise is that all unchosen constraints are illegitimate, and biology is a largest unchosen constraint. In hindsight, the Enlightenment appears to have been seeded trans-sexualism and eventually trans-humanism from the beginning.
As you can read in the "Denton's report," the whole idea was that glomming T onto LGB would allow the complete appropriation of their tropes, themes, and issues to the use of "trans." https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists/
I do not agree the LGB is parent to the T. It is more correct to say that the T, like the Blob, absorbs absolutely everything it touches, including progressive Christianity, Marxism, postmodernism, media, civil rights orgs, AIDS charities, intersex charities, etc etc. Men were attempting gruesome vivisectional experiments on themselves first, came up with the metaphysics later, got funded at a very particular and important moment after Obergefell, and took over the world of liberal politics.
Money changes everything.
As suggested by the author, but not stated quite this way, gay rights and in particular same-sex marriage triumphed by promoting the notion that there is no substantial difference between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships and sexuality. (Nor for that matter between gays and lesbians.) This is patent nonsense, and can only make logical sense if we accept that there aren't substantial differences between males and females in their sexuality and their social relationships. As the author notes, an older generation of gay-rights advocates admitted and indeed embraced the different natures of heterosexual and homosexual relations. Downplaying or altogether denying the differences made strategic sense in fighting against discrimination and for marriage rights. But it has had a chilling effect on honest communication about sex and sexuality.
Transgenderism has built upon this embourgeoisement of sexual minorities. At the same time, it obviously has a very confused and contradictory relationship to the question of differences between the sexes, insisting that they are both nothing and everything.
A good piece, but what's missing from discussion -- the influence of the astounding inflows of money to HRC, ACLU, etc from trans billionaires like Martine Rothblatt, Jennifer Pritzker (cousin of Illinois gov., obscenely wealthy and politically connected). A coterie of wealthy AGPs (and gay men, it must be said) have filled the coffers of HRC, GLAAD, and the ACLU. See Jennifer Bilek.
An excellent piece with more than echoes in history. When polio was eradicated, the March of Dimes had to decide whether to close up shop or keep going by focusing on other childhood ailments. They chose to stay together - keeping the societal purchase and their own livelihoods secure - rather than declare victory and close up shop. True, March of Dimes is a very good group that does good work, but the near-inevitability of this kind of shift is quite common in the caring industry - I go a little bit more into it this piece - https://thomas699.substack.com/p/the-cult-of-safety
Great piece, and your graphic doesn’t do the trajectory justice. Already, we have polyamorists and polyandrists at work to future “broaden” (dumb down) the definition of “marriage.” It’s only a matter of time when well have to apologize to fundamentalist mormons, and NAMBLA is resurrected as legitimate (wait, we’re already there) and people wonder why they can’t marry their dogs, cats, cars, and motorcycles. Don’t scoff. We are truly living in a narcissistic world.
I agree with the way you have identified the tactics of the transgender movement as common to the previous LGB campaigns. However tactics are not enough to explain the rise of transgenderism.
Same sex marriage normalised transgender ideology by delinking marriage and family from biology. Marriage forms the archetype for sexual role and function. First the female becomes Wife and the Male becomes Husband. Then the Female reaches full expression as Mother. Male reaches full expression as Father. They have their children, the children have a Mother and a Father. This was the norm for the entirety of human Civilization until the last few decades - despite the progressive media’s lame attempts at pretending otherwise.
By degendering marriage progressives have degendered sexual roles. They have destroyed the archetypes of male and female which were already threatened by LGB activism but still reached full expression in marriage. Now there is nothing left. Being male or female is nothing more than a feeling. It is in this society meaningless as an archetype or a function or role.
In this way transgenderism is female liberation/feminism at full expression. “You can be anything you want to be” irrespective of biology. “Woman can do anything men can do”. Feminism created the distinction between biology as sex and social role as gender and made it its mission - having created a division which previously did not exist - to smash any causative link between the two.
Although curiously never have grown women been portrayed as so pathetic and lacking in agency as they are now. Woman are encouraged to think their life failures are inevitably the result of some consensual interaction they had decades prior which they now regret and hence was never consensual.
Western Civilisation is built fundamentally on the Family. That conceptual family has now all but been destroyed. Western Civilization will collapse unless by some miracle that previous order can be restored. No amount of wealth, or resources or military power will save Western Civilization if it cannot save the family.
I have met more than a few gay individuals from the “we are just like everyone else except for our sexuality and just want to just be left alone” time almost unable to comprehend the modern LGBT+(insert alphabet here) movement.
The term natural is being used equivocally here. Sure homosexuality is natural in the sense that it can be observed in nature. It is not natural in the sense that, for a species that reproduces sexually, the natural i.e. proper or teleological orientation of sex is purely heterosexual. Anything else is an error, even if that error is 10% of the population it is still unnatural in that sense. Obviously doesn't mean people should be oppressed or hated or harmed. But it is what it is. Truth is paramount.
The trans cult (a term I remember first using) is similar to what a movement of Rachel Dolezal-types (Euro-descent women pretending to be Black for profit, attention, narcissism, etc.) would be if there were more of them and they invaded the African-descent community in large entitled numbers. But Rachel was dealt with quickly and firmly. One of the only fools (a Euro-descent woman of course) to defend her as being sincere in thinking she was Black, hadn't known Rachel had previously sued Howard University for "discriminating" against her as a white woman.
I'm told that privileged whites faking being Black is not the same as privileged het men and women pretending to be Lesbians or gay men, etc., so shut up. But it's very similar, and it is no more the fault of African-American culture, activism, politics, community, or people that created parasites like Rachel Dolezal than it is the fault of Lesbians for why het men to obsess about us, stalk us, demand access to us, threaten us, or murder us for over 50 years. (I'm still being stalked by the same man who went after me when I was 17, but, though doxxed, I haven't been murdered, yet, unlike other Lesbians in Oakland.)
I'm focusing on Lesbians here because I'm a Lesbian, and as we wrote in our book, Dykes-Loving-Dykes, (published in 1990), our community and lives have been very different and separate from gay men, on many levels. (Even though men still try to speak for us.)
From what I can see, this trans mania benefits primarily het men (who are who most decide to be "Lesbians" or who want nothing in the way of "transitioning," to keep their options open, just as judges, like the one who sentenced serial killer, Ted Bundy, wished him well.)
Lesbians deciding they are men are another issue, having to do with wanting more privilege in patriarchy where women are still expected to look like drag queens limping about in order to get many jobs. But what many ignore, in spite of the stereotypes, is that most of the women demanding to be accepted as "transmen" are feminine het women, for status and fetish. (Look at the "before" photos in Loren Cameron's book, Body Alchemy. She killed herself last year.)
Another major ignored factor in this mess is porn and especially sado-masochism. The queen of sadism, Pat Califia, Fem bisexual who claimed to be Butch, Lesbian, and then a gay man, brought sado-masochistic fetish into my Lesbian community directly from the gay men she worshipped and now claims to be. Anyone watching the early conferences and booklets that promoted the trans cult to women and Lesbians can see the connection clearly, from using pseudo-Lesbian feminist jargon to the non-consensual "scenes."
And then there are the liberal, mostly class-privileged women (and yes, some Lesbians), who jumped right in to defend and promote who they were told were far more oppressed than they could ever be, even though no one is truly "trans," and "trans" are primarily a very privileged group of het men, het women and class-privileged Lesbian. (Not all but most.) Now of course they have indoctrinated children, further muddying the issue.
Put the blame where it belongs....
"Gender affirming care" is the gay conversion therapy from hell. It's astounding the number of affluent gays who are totally oblivious to what is happening around them. They repeat every trans/journalistic cliche....about all the medical association and about suicide rates, etc. And become belligerent if contradicted.
Understand that many of these people are big $$$ donors to the big organization. But supporting them is coded blue, and taking issue with their agendas coded red.
That meta-analysis you link to, examining the effects of increased sex education, is a perfect example of how ideology gets laundered into Science™️.
The goal of the gay rights movement, from the start, was to destroy "heterosexism," the older word for heteronormativity. That has consequences. Just saying.
(If you don't believe me google the name "Craig Rodwell".)
LBGTQ.... has been around forever. Why suddenly has it become so important. They are a very small minority in the population.
In my opinion, this is a top down movement and not grass roots. Big money is behind this and it's being forced down our throats. You'd better believe big money is investing heavily in "gender affirming care" related equities. Same goes for "climate change".
The trans cult (a term I remember first using) is similar to what a movement of Rachel Dolezal-types (Euro-descent women pretending to be Black for profit, attention, narcissism, etc.) would be if there were more of them and they invaded the African-descent community in large entitled numbers. But Rachel was dealt with quickly and firmly. One of the only fools (a Euro-descent woman of course) to defend her as being sincere in thinking she was Black, hadn't known Rachel had previously sued Howard University for "discriminating" against her as a white woman.
I'm told that privileged whites faking being Black is not the same as privileged het men and women pretending to be Lesbians or gay men, etc., so shut up. But it's very similar, and it is no more the fault of African-American culture, activism, politics, community, or people that created parasites like Rachel Dolezal than it is the fault of Lesbians for why het men to obsess about us, stalk us, demand access to us, threaten us, or murder us for over 50 years. (I'm still being stalked by the same man who went after me when I was 17, but, though doxxed, I haven't been murdered, yet, unlike other Lesbians in Oakland.)
I'm focusing on Lesbians here because I'm a Lesbian, and as we wrote in our book, Dykes-Loving-Dykes, (published in 1990), our community and lives have been very different and separate from gay men, on many levels. (Even though men still try to speak for us.)
From what I can see, this trans mania benefits primarily het men (who are who most decide to be "Lesbians" or who want nothing in the way of "transitioning," to keep their options open, just as judges, like the one who sentenced serial killer, Ted Bundy, wished him well.)
Lesbians deciding they are men are another issue, having to do with wanting more privilege in patriarchy where women are still expected to look like drag queens limping about in order to get many jobs. But what many ignore, in spite of the stereotypes, is that most of the women demanding to be accepted as "transmen" are feminine het women, for status and fetish. (Look at the "before" photos in Loren Cameron's book, Body Alchemy. She killed herself last year.)
Another major ignored factor in this mess is porn and especially sado-masochism. The queen of sadism, Pat Califia, Fem bisexual who claimed to be Butch, Lesbian, and then a gay man, brought sado-masochistic fetish into my Lesbian community directly from the gay men she worshipped and now claims to be. Anyone watching the early conferences and booklets that promoted the trans cult to women and Lesbians can see the connection clearly, from using pseudo-Lesbian feminist jargon to the non-consensual "scenes."
And then there are the liberal, mostly class-privileged women (and yes, some Lesbians), who jumped right in to defend and promote who they were told were far more oppressed than they could ever be, even though no one is truly "trans," and "trans" are primarily a very privileged group of het men, het women and class-privileged Lesbian. (Not all but most.) Now of course they have indoctrinated children, further muddying the issue.
Put the blame where it belongs....
Thank you for your comments.
1) What societies are you referring to? Afghanistan for example? Yes, I am fairly sure divorce is rare there as is any semblance of equality between the sexes 2) the fact that some societies have a cultural prohibition against divorce simply means the form of the contract is preserved, it says nothing about the culture’s ‘morality’ or the quality of the marriage 3) what is moral about a woman who is forced by custom or fear to stay in a marriage where she is beaten, where her children are beaten, where her husband cheats on her, where she has no life of her own, where she is threatened with death if she tries to leave? According to the UN 87,000 women are murdered each year by male domestic partners.
There are power differences between men and women, physical, social and, in some societies, legal,
and very definitely in terms of a sense of entitlement. It is unbelievably naive to think those differences don’t play out, sometimes in extreme ways, in the nature/quality of heterosexual relationships, whether those are intimate relationships such as marriage or relationships like members of sports teams. That is precisely what we are seeing in this trans lunacy. The stupefying arrogance of a gaggle of men in skirts telling women who and what and how we should be and their entitled demanding that everyone just do as they say. WTF!!
There are reason why heterosexual marriages fail at an alarming rate. No, it is not necessarily or only because they are heterosexual. But if you refuse to look at the social, cultural and economic dynamics of heterosexuality and how those impact marriage, then divorce rates will simply continue their ever skyward climb.
Lastly, cui bono? Who benefits from all this social destruction and divisiveness? That is where the action and anger is properly directed rather than toward one another.