Why can’t I just be neutral?

Neutrality is mostly a myth. In WWII, many countries tried to maintain neutrality, but virtually all were either invaded or bombed anyway, including Switzerland, which suffered some bombings by both sides. What about WWIII? “No such thing” you say. My previous post mentioned the LGBTQ narrative. The foundational presupposition of that narrative is: “We were born this way, or god made us this way, we shouldn’t be discriminated against for something innate, it isn’t just feelings.” Nowhere in their agenda is this argument weaker than in so-called “gender dysphoria.” That is why “trans’ rights” are being pushed so aggressively. If society at large can be forced, yes forced, to accept the reality, rather than the subjectivity, of “gender dysphoria”, the LGBTQ express–acknowledgement, to acquiescence, to acceptance, to applause–will have added another engine to the train. What they will never add is a caboose. There will always be demands for more. That’s WWIII.

As always, the radicals eat their own. The dynamics are illustrated by Twitter’s banning last week of Canadian feminist writer Meghan Murphy. Murphy violated a new rule forbidding users from “misgendering” trans people—when she referred to a transitioning person who goes by both Jonathan and Jessica as “him.” It was this latest violation that precipitated her permanent ban. The previous generation of radical feminists are fighting their war with the new generation of trans activists, who call them Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists, or TERFs. This subset of the sexual culture war is being fought, as usual, with acronyms, invented pronouns, Twitter policing, social media mobs, courts and legislatures. Everyone will be caught up in the mess.

Quoting Ben Shapiro, in National Review: “Can subjective perception trump objective observation? If the answer is yes, tyranny of the individual becomes the order of the day. We all must bow before the subjective wants, needs, and desires of people who require special protection from life’s realities. We must reeducate generations of people to ignore science in favor of feelings. We must strong-arm individuals into abandoning central planks of their morality in the name of sensitivity.

“Meanwhile, Twitter announced this week that it would seek to ban those who ‘misgender’ or ‘deadname’ transgender people. In other words, if you note that Chelsea Manning or Caitlyn Jenner is a man, or if you use the names ‘Bradley’ or ‘Bruce’ with regard to the aforementioned transgender people, Twitter could ban you for ‘repeated and/or non-consensual slurs.’ So you will abide by subjective self-definition, or you will be censored. Twitter recently banned a leftist feminist for merely noting that sex is biological and that men cannot become women (Murphy).

“There are real-world consequences to the deliberate rewriting of basic biology, and the substitution of subjectivity for objectivity. It means rewriting business operation, school curricula, medical treatment standards, censorship rules, and even parenting. But sympathy for a mental disorder should not trump either objective reality or competing priorities based on those objective realities. Falsehood crumbles in the light of day, no matter how sympathetic we are to those who wish to perpetuate it — unless force becomes the order of the day.” Which it has!!

From The Daily Wire: A Texas father is fighting for his son in court after pushing back on his ex-wife’s claim that their six-year-old is a transgender girl. According to court documents, the young boy only dresses as a girl when he’s with his mother, who has enrolled him in first-grade as a female named “Luna.” The father, however, contends that his son consistently chooses to wear boy’s clothes, “violently refuses to wear girl’s clothes at my home,” and identifies as a boy when he is with him.

“The Federalist reports that the mother has accused the father of child abuse in their divorce proceedings “for not affirming James as transgender” and is looking to strip the dad of his parental rights. “She is also seeking to require him to pay for the child’s visits to a transgender-affirming therapist and transgender medical alterations, which may include hormonal sterilization starting at age eight,” the report adds. The father has been legally barred from speaking to his child about sexuality and gender from a scientific or religious perspective and from dressing his son in boys’ clothes; instead, he has to offer both girls’ and boys’ outfits. The boy consistently refuses to wear dresses, according to the father.

“The boy was diagnosed with gender dysphoria by a gender transition therapist the mother, a pediatrician, chose for her son to see. According to the therapist’s notes, the boy chose to identify as a girl when he was in sessions alone with his mother; alternatively, he chose to identify as a boy when he was in sessions alone with his father. The Federalist reports: A dossier filed with the Dallas court says that, under the skilled eyes of the therapist, the child was presented two pieces of paper, one with the word ‘James’ and one with the word ‘Luna,’ and asked to pick the name he preferred. When the appointment only included his mother, James selected Luna, the name and gender he uses at his mother’s home and in his first-grade classroom. When the appointment was only with his father, however, James pointed to the boy name James, not the girl name.

“Walt Heyer, author of Trans Life Survivors and former transgender female, warns that the potential diagnosis could ruin the boy’s life, similar to what he went through after he was secretly cross-dressed by this grandmother for two-and-a-half years as a young boy. ‘The diagnosis is critical, because labeling a child with gender dysphoria can trigger a series of physical and mental consequences for the child and has legal ramifications in the ongoing custody case. Get it wrong,’ Heyer writes at The Federalist, the boy’s ‘life is irrevocably harmed.’ The boy’s ‘precious young life hinges purely on the diagnosis of gender dysphoria by a therapist who wraps herself in rainbow colors, affirms the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and dismisses evidence to the contrary,’ argues Heyer. The author warned, ‘If we do not save [the boy] from a misdiagnosis, his next step is chemical castration at age eight, only two years away’.”

We are justifiably horrified at sex selection abortions, like in China under the “one child” policy, where female babies were killed in favor of males. Now it appears that in our enlightened country, sex selection can be done with drugs and surgery after birth. Is that progress, or pathology? I could have been that six year old boy had I been born 70 years later, because I spent a few minutes dressing my sister’s dolls. Some people still wonder, “how did we get here?” First aberrant desires were “in the closet”, and we wanted to be tolerant, so those desires “came out” and accommodations were made, often voluntarily, because we don’t want to be bigoted, and thought it was possible to be neutral. The LGBTQ activists then pushed for legislation that would define their behavior as equivalent to skin color and gender for enforcement of their “equality”. Equality of or for what? Their rights, first under the law, but clearly beyond that, to forced compliance with their desires, pronouns, gender selection, bathroom preferences, until, inevitably, experts like a gender transition specialist show up to push their vested interests into family struggles. You thought you could be neutral! Are you starting to see the agenda of this long war?

Are you lulled to unconsciousness by cliches like “war on terror” (which is really the tip of the 1400 year jihad to establish a worldwide caliphate), or “anti-equality extremists” (anyone who objects to remaking the world according to lgbtq propaganda), “tolerance” (applaud or else), “misgendering and deadnaming” (calling someone by their birth gender or name). Didn’t you realize, changing minds begins with changing language. Every time you used gay in place of homosexual, you were validating an agenda that was inexorably moving towards the new vocabulary and the tyranny of the subjective.

Author: iamcurmudgeon

When I began this blog, I was a 70 year old man, with a young mind and a body trying to recover from a stroke, and my purpose for this whole blog thing is to provoke thinking, to ridicule reflex reaction, and provide a legacy to my children.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s