Post by MARIO on Mar 17, 2006 20:07:04 GMT -8
Male, female, or other: can I check all three?
By Nathanael Blake
Mar 17, 2006
Liberals hate sex. No, not that— the other kind. While they support sexual acts in all possible permutations, the male/female distinction drives them round the bend. For the worst sufferers, the mere sight of those little bathroom door stick figures can induce apoplexy or delusions of sex as a social construct and gender as a continuum.
But on college campuses, psychotic is very trendy. Next fall, my university will follow the lead of other schools by adding an 'other' category to the gender section of admissions forms so that "students will now be able to express exactly who they think they are." In short, unfortunate delusions are to be treated as perfectly acceptable.
There are, to be sure, rare individuals who are born intersexed (possessing attributes of both sexes), but in the Western world corrective surgery assigns a distinct sex soon after birth. Note also that the interested "I" wasn’t added into the ever-growing acronym of sexual minorities seeking liberation (currently at LGBTQQIA) until recently; the transgendered and transsexual made it in much earlier.
The push for recognizing "gender variance" has little to do with genuine biological aberrance. Its goal is not to treat those burdened with physical forms that are imperfectly realized more charitably, but to abolish sex by destroying the normative standard.
If I approached the director of the student government’s Queer Affairs Task Force and I claimed to be an eggplant trapped in a man’s body, she would smile, nod politely (she is a nice person), and then call for friendly people in white coats to haul me off to a padded cell. But if I claimed to be a woman trapped in a man’s body, she would force others to act as if my view were correct. In short, psychosis is considered quite alright, provided it obliterates sexual norms, traditions, and taboos. Forget fluoride, we need thorazine in the local water supply.
I’m reminded of a scene of Lewis Carroll’s. "Alice laughed. 'There’s no use trying,' she said; 'one can’t believe impossible things.' 'I dare say you haven’t had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day.'"
Believing in the modern liberal view of sex must require at least an hour of practice each day. How else can they believe, for example, that masculinity and femininity are social constructs with no relation to the biological differences between the sexes, while also holding that homosexuality is inherent? Or that gender is unimportant, except when someone insists that he or she is stuck in a body of the wrong gender?
The explanation for this mass foolishness is found in what modern man considers ontologically normative: nothing. If everything is self-defined, then no one need worry about consistency. Richard Weaver put it well: "The denial of universals carries with it the denial of everything transcending experience. The denial of everything transcending experience means inevitably—though ways are found to hedge on this—the denial of truth. With the denial of objective truth there is no escape from the relativism of 'man the measure of all things.'" Man was told that "by this easy choice he might realize himself more fully," but found this also initiated "a course which cuts one off from reality." With the abolition of sex, the cutting off from reality can be quite literal.
READ THE REST:
www.townhall.com/print/print_story.php?sid=190177&loc=/opinion/columns/NathanaelBlake/2006/03/17/190177.html
By Nathanael Blake
Mar 17, 2006
Liberals hate sex. No, not that— the other kind. While they support sexual acts in all possible permutations, the male/female distinction drives them round the bend. For the worst sufferers, the mere sight of those little bathroom door stick figures can induce apoplexy or delusions of sex as a social construct and gender as a continuum.
But on college campuses, psychotic is very trendy. Next fall, my university will follow the lead of other schools by adding an 'other' category to the gender section of admissions forms so that "students will now be able to express exactly who they think they are." In short, unfortunate delusions are to be treated as perfectly acceptable.
There are, to be sure, rare individuals who are born intersexed (possessing attributes of both sexes), but in the Western world corrective surgery assigns a distinct sex soon after birth. Note also that the interested "I" wasn’t added into the ever-growing acronym of sexual minorities seeking liberation (currently at LGBTQQIA) until recently; the transgendered and transsexual made it in much earlier.
The push for recognizing "gender variance" has little to do with genuine biological aberrance. Its goal is not to treat those burdened with physical forms that are imperfectly realized more charitably, but to abolish sex by destroying the normative standard.
If I approached the director of the student government’s Queer Affairs Task Force and I claimed to be an eggplant trapped in a man’s body, she would smile, nod politely (she is a nice person), and then call for friendly people in white coats to haul me off to a padded cell. But if I claimed to be a woman trapped in a man’s body, she would force others to act as if my view were correct. In short, psychosis is considered quite alright, provided it obliterates sexual norms, traditions, and taboos. Forget fluoride, we need thorazine in the local water supply.
I’m reminded of a scene of Lewis Carroll’s. "Alice laughed. 'There’s no use trying,' she said; 'one can’t believe impossible things.' 'I dare say you haven’t had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day.'"
Believing in the modern liberal view of sex must require at least an hour of practice each day. How else can they believe, for example, that masculinity and femininity are social constructs with no relation to the biological differences between the sexes, while also holding that homosexuality is inherent? Or that gender is unimportant, except when someone insists that he or she is stuck in a body of the wrong gender?
The explanation for this mass foolishness is found in what modern man considers ontologically normative: nothing. If everything is self-defined, then no one need worry about consistency. Richard Weaver put it well: "The denial of universals carries with it the denial of everything transcending experience. The denial of everything transcending experience means inevitably—though ways are found to hedge on this—the denial of truth. With the denial of objective truth there is no escape from the relativism of 'man the measure of all things.'" Man was told that "by this easy choice he might realize himself more fully," but found this also initiated "a course which cuts one off from reality." With the abolition of sex, the cutting off from reality can be quite literal.
READ THE REST:
www.townhall.com/print/print_story.php?sid=190177&loc=/opinion/columns/NathanaelBlake/2006/03/17/190177.html