Did you know that the Roman Catholic Church just challenged “gender science”? Did you know that snuffing out the life of a nascent human being within the mother’s womb is “reproductive health” or the older one, “family planning,” and that fertilization of a human egg by human sperm, that is, conception, the beginning of the process which results nine months later in the birth of a new person, isn’t producing a baby but merely a “product of conception.” While we’re at it, let’s not fail to mention that killing over six million Jews, including Gypsies and others, was but a “final solution.”
I hate euphemisms which promote, by attempting to disguise, an ideology that is too heinous or stupid to stand up to questioning! I strongly disagree with the ideologies disguised by the euphemisms above: Non-binary sex identity, aborting nascent humans, racial, ethnic and religious hatred. There are three ways to disagree with an ideology: 1. Separate the ideology from the person espousing it, then “question to pieces” the ideology, preferably in dialogue with the person espousing it; 2. Conflate the ideology with the person espousing it, and attack the person (or your assumption of their motives)–the “ad hominen” attack–rather than questioning the ideology; 3. Ignore any controversy and go on your merry, ignorant or apathetic way. I vote for #1. But I have made one exception. In the two plus years I have been blogging, I have mentioned specific person’s names only in the context of what they said, letting their own words either praise or condemn them.
The exception is Carlos Maza, the homo blogger at Vox, who was unstinting in his efforts to get YouTube to ban and demonetize Steven Crowder, because….Why? Maza whined about Crowder “attacking” him, shaming him, being homophobic, racist, etc. I have been unable to find the Crowder videos wherein he mentioned Maza. The closest I could find was a series called “There are only two sexes: Change my mind.” Crowder set up a table on a college campus and a city corner with that banner, and invited people who disagreed to change his mind. I watched two hours worth, and never once did he attack or insult the person. Rather, his questions challenged their ideas, and some took offense at being challenged. That’s what they called “being attacked.” Lots of people have attacked Maza on YouTube, after YouTube reviewers said the Crowder videos didn’t violate their guidelines. But Maza kept pushing, kept whining, kept threatening YouTube, until YouTube finally agreed to demonetize Crowder’s channel. I went on YouTube today, and searched for “Crowder and Maza”, “Carlos Maza” and other combinations, trying to find the offending videos. What I found was personal attacks on Maza, not for being homosexual, not for being Hispanic, but for being a bully and fascist pretending to be a victim! That’s what so many viewers were angry about. That’s why I singled him out. Carlos, you asked for it, you got it.
Now, back to euphemisms. “Gender science” or “non-binary” = science denial. Every living creature which is both animate and reproduces sexually has only male or female parts. There is no third option. “Reproductive health” and “family planning” (by abortion) = killing the “product of conception.” The “product of conception” = growing human being. Gender = the physical appearance of biological sex. If gender is merely cultural and stereotypical as the trans activists insist, then why does so-called “reassignment surgery” always involve cutting off or sewing on parts of the other sex? The proper description of that surgery should be sexual appearance alteration, NOT gender reassignment or sexual reassignment. Appearance is being changed, nothing is being reassigned because nothing was assigned to begin with. God created the sex.
God creates, man destroys. The “final solution” = killing millions, stealing their possessions, plunging the world into war. That still has to be the king of the euphemisms.