What I gather from trans propagandists, polemicists, and apologists is that some or all in the LGBTQIA+ (more accurately LGBBTQIIAPR+) concoction conglomerate affirm that there are only two sexes (granting statistically very, very rare genetic disorders) but that there are an unlimited number of genders: sexes are 3-D verifiable physical realities, genders are social construct which anyone can, tentatively, invent at any given time.
As I will note below, such issues touch upon everything from philosophy to epistemology, from to anatomy to linguistics and beyond.
They claim that, for example, a sex-born woman who merely asserts that she’s a man is a man by mere declaration, self-identification. She may or may not go on to chemically and surgically rape her body so give her the appearance, a simulacrum, of a male body but she has been a man since the moment she first though and then said she is a man.
Thus, they, if consistent, they would have to affirm that she’s a she/woman/female but merely mascaraed as a he/man/male based on an emotively subjective, intrinsic, tentative, personal preference based, abstract assertion.
Now, if we grant that, then we have an agreement that there is a sex binary but some people just make up stuff about who and what they are—name it, claim it.
So, this is not about anatomy, it’s about abstract assertions about identity.
Now, we may grant that it may be tragic but people certainly can merely claim to be whatever they want, but it doesn’t end there in terms of the socio-political activism atmosphere.
The next step is that they, with laws backing them, demand that anyone who disagrees with them is still required to play into their tentative emotively subjective personal preference du jour (use their promulgated pronouns, don’t misgender, don’t dead-name, etc.). That is to say that when a woman asserts that she’s a man you must refer to her as such because thus saith she.
That brings up the question of how and why it’s considered a neo-universal imperative, an neo-ought, for all humans to refer to other humans as per a self-identification. Well, the reply we get seems to range from guilt trip emotionalism to legal ramifications to reputation and business damaging or destroying ramifications.
For example, if you self-identify as a person who adheres to verifiable 3-d physical reality then you’re to be ignored, put down, made fun of, rejected, called phobic this, hateful that, intolerant the other, etc.: your diversity will not be tolerated.
You may, depending on the country, serve jail time and/or pay fines for exercising your right to self-identify as one who upholds the right to not play into merely asserted affirmations about reality—or, lack thereof. You may even be personally cancelled which could run your rep (in the eyes of some) and could damage your ability to support yourself and your family.
Let’s imagine if we will, that claiming to be a man when one is a woman is a very, very serious psycho-emotional disorder (as all body dysmorphia clearly is) and that rather than getting professional therapeutic treatment, you are encouraged to continue suffering from that/those disorders—even if you put a band-aid on them such as by changing your wardrove, chemically and surgically raping your body, etc.
The problems will not go away just because you’ve temporarily only partially distracted yourself. And, they don’t go away because you hide away in a safe-space, a community of like-minded people who plaquette your assertions, etc. Nor do they go away because you petitioned the government to persecute anyone who dares to disagree with you.
An interesting philosophical question I’ve heard is: if we call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
The answers, plural, range from epistemology to anatomy to linguistics.
Linguistically, we may say that it has five since the common parlance would be that we call five parts of the dog’s body leg.
Yet, epistemically we’d appeal to anatomy and say that while we refer to the appendage on the back side of the dog a leg, it’s morphology and functions differ greatly from four appendages beneath the dog.
This would be a case of linguistics not matching reality. Anyone can call anything whatever they want but those are mere claims, mere labels, mere assertions, etc.
The woman in question can call herself a man but that’s as far as that literal delusion goes: it’s a claim that doesn’t match reality. It’s a mere label that’s a mislabel.
Yet, this is actually about how the universe came into being.
How so, because there’s a reason that the question why does something exist rather then nothing? has been considered the primary philosophical question. And that is because the answer to that one question affects all that which follows, it becomes the core of one’s entire worldview.
If your reply is that it just happens to have happened all by itself—and just so happens to have happened the way it just so happens to have happened—accidentally (as in un-created, un-designed, not the end result of a volitional plan, etc.) then there’s no universal imperative to adhere to reality since on that view, reality is accidental, as is our ability to discern it.
If your reply is that, for example, the God of the Bible created a rational creation and populated it with rational beings who could (and should, ought to) rationally discern it then it’s a fundamental level contradiction to affirm something that is contrary to reality.
Thus, it’s not as simple as, “it’s ma’am!!!!!”since this is about theology, philosophy, epistemology, linguistics, anatomy, the ontology of reality, etc., etc., etc. and no amount of hate speech from the (sleeping) woke side will change that.
It’s been said that even the most militant Atheist still lives as if God exists, they just beg, borrow, and steal from the God of the Bible’s worldview since they live in an ordered creation.
When we accept that people are whatever they merely assert we get what we’ve been getting the past few decades: an increasingly oiled slippery slope where literal psycho-emotional disorders rule the day—and persecute anyone who is even perceived to get in the way of affirmations of literally, verifiable, delusion.
See my various books here, including In Consideration of Rev. Dr. Mel White on Christian Homosexuality and The Occult Roots of Postgenderism: And a History of Changes to Psychiatry and Psychology.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.
Leave a Reply