The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

‘Gender’ and the Question: Why?

Posted on | February 25, 2019 | 1 Comment

 

 

One of the problems that has long handicapped conservative opposition to the LGBT movement is that so many conservatives publicly engage in speculative or theoretical discussions of the “why” of sexual perversion, which is easily caricatured as ignorant bigotry. No matter how well-informed your generalizations may be as to the causes of deviant sexual behavior, such discussions will always be deemed “offensive” by LGBT activists, and there is thus nothing to be gained by addressing questions of etiology. Better to refrain from this and just take your stand on a biblical basis, or else in terms of a general opposition to radical egalitarianism, which is really the larger problem. LGBT activists wish to impose policies which will require us to treat things that are different as if they are equal and, however much we may wish to avoid the accusation of “homophobia” (or “transphobia,” as the case may be), there is an obvious problem with such policies. e.g., “Transgender high school athletes spark controversy, debate in Connecticut.” When high school girls are being cheated out of athletic trophies because of a policy that permits “transgender” athletes who are actually male to compete as girls, it becomes obvious why it is impossible to create “equality” between people who are fundamentally different. This is just plain crazy.

One explanation you’ll sometimes hear about young people engaged in deviant sexual behavior is they’re “just doing it for the attention.” Like, a girl “comes out” as bisexual or whatever, and guys will dismiss this as an attention-seeking gesture. Which may be true, but this doesn’t mean she’s not actually a pervert. In other words, the motives for her behavior are less important than the behavior itself. You’re not her therapist, nor are you a research psychologist tasked with understanding the “why” of sexuality, so your dismissive comment is at best irrelevant, and perhaps prejudicial. Saying that a young person is “just going through a phase” of “experimenting” with homosexual behavior is based on the belief that some category of True Homosexuals must exist and that, because the young person “experimenting” this way does not belong to that category, they will eventually revert to normal heterosexuality.

Wake up — behavior defines “sexuality.” The idea that sexual behavior is a matter of identity, an innate trait which we can somehow separate from a person’s behavior, was a fiction created by LGBT activists in order to make “civil rights” a basis for their legal and policy arguments. Only if “sexuality” was recognized as an identity, analogous to race, could a Fourteenth Amendment claim hope to get past the Supreme Court, and you can read Justice Scalia’s dissent in the relevant cases — Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Windsor v. U.S. (2013) and Obergfell v. Hodges (2015) — to find a sound rebuttal of such claims. Whatever your opinion about gay rights may be, the idea that such rights are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution is ludicrous. The Framers had no such intention, nor was any amendment to the Constitution ever intended to make such a guarantee. However, as I say, it was for the purpose of obtaining such legal protection that the whole “born-that-way” explanation of homosexuality (as an identity, rather than as a behavior) was promoted by activists. And widespread acceptance of that explanation is having very dangerous consequences. There’s more at stake than just girls losing athletic trophies; young people are making life-altering decisions because adults are increasingly afraid to say “no” to them.

 

Last February, I introduced you to a Tampa art student (“Your Homophobia Is a ‘Direct Threat’ of ‘Potential Violence,’ Says Queer Feminist”) whose given name is Gabrielle, who had previously called herself “Gabi” before switching to “Ellie,” but who has since then taken to calling herself “Ulie.” As I explained, Gabrielle claims to “have been professionally diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, bipolar type II, and PTSD,” and is prone to posting provocative selfies with pink hair, a nose ring and a dog collar. The question of how and why Gabrielle got so crazy is less important than the fact of her craziness.

 

Who approved this 23-year-old art student for transgender hormones and surgery? And why? Isn’t it obvious that a young woman who describes herself as “severely mentally ill” might need psychotherapy rather than testosterone injections and a radical mastectomy? Since when did gender reassignment become standard treatment for crazy people?

Meanwhile, Gabrielle’s suicidal tendencies resulted in her speaking to a “disability counselor” at her university, and she was worried that she might be committed under the Baker Act which, in hindsight, probably would have been the best thing for her. That’s what we used to do with crazy people: “Hey, you’re acting crazy. We’re going to lock you up in the looney bin until you learn to stop acting crazy.” But now? Just give them a sex change, and send them on their way. Also, force everybody to play along with the crazy person’s delusions and pretend that this is all entirely normal. What could possibly go wrong?

In case you’re wondering how a “severely mentally ill” art student is going to pay for hormones and surgery, the answer is: You.

Whether through taxes or higher insurance premiums, the cost for all this transgender treatment is being passed along to everyone else, and the doctors who prescribe such treatment simply don’t care how the bills get paid. Once it was decided people had a “right” to be transgender, they quickly proceeded to discovering they had a “right” to make other people pay for turning them into whatever they imagine they are. So now “free” sex-change treatment is a constitutional right, and I’m sure that’s what the Founding Fathers must have intended, aren’t you?




 

 

Category: The Transgender Cult

Comments

One Response to “‘Gender’ and the Question: Why?”

  1. News of the Week (March 3rd, 2019) | The Political Hat
    March 3rd, 2019 @ 9:30 pm

    […] “Gender” and the Question: Why? One of the problems that has long handicapped conservative opposition to the LGBT movement is that so many conservatives publicly engage in speculative or theoretical discussions of the “why” of sexual perversion, which is easily caricatured as ignorant bigotry. No matter how well-informed your generalizations may be as to the causes of deviant sexual behavior, such discussions will always be deemed “offensive” by LGBT activists, and there is thus nothing to be gained by addressing questions of etiology. […]