Category Archives: Political Correctness

Politically Correct Infestations

With greater frequency every year, LGBT “alliance” groups are popping up in high schools across the US. They already exist in most companies and on virtually every college campus, but the target audience of these groups seems to be younger all the time.

What are these groups? The ‘LGB’ portion of the acronym at least has some sort of cohesion to it: All three indicate groups of people who desire intimacy and pleasure from others of the same sex. It’s a strange thing to unite about; a strange thing to want to “ally” with.

The ‘T’ is even more strange. What was, until very recently, a letter representing “transvestites” (people who dress like the opposite sex) has morphed into “transgender” (an ambiguous term without any agreed upon content). Just as the president redefined the terms “sex” in Title IX to mean something which simply did not exist as a concept when the law was written, LGBT proponents have silently updated the content of their terminology over time. This should give us pause when considering the intentions of these groups. If the very essence of these “alliances” changes so violently over such short periods of time, do these groups have a purpose?

Alliances are typically made for mutual defense. Giving away more ground than is deserved, the same could be said for the early LGBT movement. The original purpose was this: those who are attracted to the same sex or who want to dress like the opposite sex should not be treated as criminal. On this point, many people may agree¹.

However, we don’t have that sort of situation anymore. Sodomy is no longer illegal. It is extremely rare for a person to be attacked for their sexual proclivities or their desire to wear the clothes of the opposite sex (on the contrary, such things are celebrated by popular culture, in magazines, in film and television, by the president of the United States, and by academia. Such fanfare is hardly associated with “marginalized” groups).

So what purpose do these groups serve?

In virtually every case, each LGBT “alliance” group is focused on one thing: removing any dissenting views. This is easy to do, given that dissenting views, when found, can be cast as hate-speech and prosecuted as though such speech is criminal. LGBT “alliance” groups are in this way a lot like parasites which infect a host organization and which then systematically target anyone who might be a perceived threat. These groups use “alliance” in a militant and violent way, seeking conquest instead of toleration and peace.

This makes it more important than ever for Christians, conservatives, and sane individuals of varied beliefs to unite against them. LGBT alliance groups must be opposed at all costs. Like their forebears in the Marxist Frankfurt School which infiltrated academia last century, they cannot be tolerated as another voice, and it must be always remembered that their purpose is not to seek justice, fairness, and tolerance but to drive out all dissenting voices with extreme prejudice.

I don’t know how practical this purging would be, and it need not be violent or malevolent, but it must be done swiftly and completely. If not, the same thing will be done in reverse, as has happened at Mozilla, among other companies.

1 – I disagree, even on this point. There are very good reasons to outlaw same-sex behavior and cross dressing, and this would result in being “treated badly” by way of being arrested. Among these reasons are: public order, public health, safety of children, and enforcement of a basic moral code based on human nature. On this final reason, it should be noted that while I would need to justify my view of morality, even laws that permit the behaviors in question are making moral statements. A law that permits or is silent on an issue is making a moral claim, and that moral claim must be justified as well.

I find it sad that so often, Christians are as cautious about saying things that might offend or hurt others engaged in serious sexual sin as a soldier might be on a minefield. This caution is not afforded to any other vice, however (husbands leaving their wives, etc).

The Gnostic Genderbread Man

I came upon a piece of propaganda at work last week during a fascist re-education seminar. I present it here, inherent contradictions and anti-realist statements and all:

Garbage

v3.3, because pseudoscience is hard to pin down.

There are apparently an infinite variety of positions to take on the various slider bars. This is especially strange given that biological sex is, by definition, a binary choice: either male or female. The alternative to sexual creatures are asexual creatures, and human beings are not asexual. This is a universally accepted biological fact, and an inconvenient thing to ignore if you are a gender theorist, so there are plenty of pseudoscientific reports that say nothing but try to compel people to doubt this easily observed fact.

I’m sure more revisions of this are in store, given that “sexual attracted to” seems like it should have a number of sliders equal, at least, to the number of all other sliders multiplied together. It gets a measly two. And the more sliders the better, right? This image is unknowingly a perfect reflection of the postmodern West, where reality is subject to consumerist choice. What better expression of infinite consumerist choice than a buffet?

Instead of pointing out the absurdities inherent in this image bit by bit, I thought a nice comparison image might be nice. So, for the first time, I present the Gingerbody Man:

Garbage

This can be done for every other aspect of human life one can imagine. It doesn’t take much to transform obviously simple things into artificially complex nonsense.

Note that a person who “identifies” as too fat but is actually too thin and so doesn’t eat is called an anorexic, and is extremely unhealthy. But a person who “identifies” as a woman but is actually a man and so takes testosterone-blockers is considered sacred, and not to be questioned, even though testosterone is required for health in a male body and deficiencies are considered a medical condition.

Essential in both of these images is the idea that the human body is subservient, in every way, to the human mind. The body is considered a mere shell that hides a person’s true self from getting out. As a well-timed article put it, this whole thing has its roots in therapy culture and the cult of Freud.

This sort of thing is not entirely new, however. Treating one’s body with contempt is nothing more or less than Gnosticism. In demanding that Christians follow the orders of gender theorists, the US Government and businesses that join in are demanding that Christians adopt not only an insane and anti-scientific view of the world, but a heretical one.

The Insanity of Gender Theory

Think fast.

A person with short, combed hair, and no makeup walks up to you wearing a suit. What gender is this person.

The person’s sex cannot be in doubt. There are two sexes; it is in the nature of sexual reproduction to have two sexes. One is male, and the other is female.

No, my question is to which gender a person is. The answer is that it is impossible to tell, given the fact that the term, when not used in linguistics, is for all practical purposes the greatest example of intellectual fuzziness and ambiguity available.

The person could identify as a man and be a biological male. The person could identify as a female and be a biological male and wear male clothes and act like a male. In fact, a man could simply be living a normal and say “I identify as a woman” without changing in a single way, and it would fall within the category of transgendered.

One would suspect that it would be difficult to build a punitive framework around this concept for anyone who did not find purchase in it. After all, how can someone be penalized for not fully understanding something that, by its own nature, cannot be understood? But one would be wrong. Utterly wrong.

Not only are there penalties for those who do not adhere to a philosophy grounded on ambiguous nothingness, the penalties themselves are severe. Social ostracism, losing a job, and dealing with financial penalties are not uncommon. Simply not being enthusiastic enough about the anti-philosophy of Gender Theory is sufficient in many cases.

Large companies across the United States are, in order to cater to the sexual radicals that make up the bulk of the cultural elite, increasingly enforcing the proclamations of Gender Theorists on anyone and everyone. Within a year of the first efforts to allow biological men into the biological women’s restroom (and mind you, the restrooms are divided by biological sex and not gender, else there would be urinals in both or neither), there are now boycotts of entire states who do not comply with the newly enhanced Gender Theory proclamation that requires it be permitted.

The United States is treading some familiar territory to those who lived in the fascist pits of despair popularized in the 20th century. Freedom of speech and conscience are not only limited, but are limited precisely where they ought to be most free: in the expression of true statements. “Men are men and cannot conceivably feel like women” is anathema. Despite the fact that no human being can ever feel like another in total, because we are ourselves and not someone else, it is taken for granted that a man can know what a woman feels like so thoroughly that he himself becomes one. In a sane society, this might be seen as a severe mental illness, but in an insane society, it is normalized just as one would expect. In order for a civilization to go insane, it must normalize insanity and institutionalize sanity.