Lex Anteinternet: A Sorority (Fraternity) lawsuit, and a subject who...: Modern toleration is really a tyranny. It is a tyranny because it is a silence. To say that I must not deny my opponent's faith is to sa...
In it, we noted this:
But in our political purity of the age, we're not doing that. And that's destructive for the people making the declaration, who could have been helped.
We might, before concluding, stop to ask two questions. Does it really matter, would be the first.
After all, if somebody wants to drink themselves into oblivion, does it matter, if that's their choice? Or more particularly, if somebody wants to present as a woman, who is a man, what does it really matter to me or anyone else?
Well, it does matter if your view of humanity is that we are our brother's keeper. Oddly enough, in our contemporary world, it's the political left that claims that we are, while the political right, as exhibited by Jeanette Ward in a common in the last legislative session, feels we are not. But most decent societies, and all Christian societies, feel that we are.
So there's a duty to the individual to help them live an ordered life. We know that living a disordered one leads to unhappiness.
There's a wider duty, however, to society. Assaults on individual natures are assaults on nature in general, are destructive to us all.
And, additionally, telling a lie to yourself is one thing. But demanding, even with the force of law, that everyone else adopt the lie is quite another. That's completely destructive to the social structure, as enshrining lies as part of them inevitably leads to decay.
And finally, and more particularly, it's damaging to women in the extreme. Real women, that is. Women know that they aren't men. We all know that the biological life of a woman is radically different from a man's in nearly every sense. Psychologically, it isn't the same either. Reducing womanhood to appearing to have boobs is the most Hefnereque position of all, and an insult to women in every fashion.
After posting it, an irony occured to us that is another reason the entire transgender fantasy, as society approaches the topic, does damage to society.
It's extremely logically inconsistent.
A consistent drum beat in this are by the progressive left is that "tolerance" and "acceptance" are all that's required here, and that this all is a straight line from earlier civil rights movements, with the most common analogy being it's a straight line to "transgender rights' from 1) civil rights for blacks, or 2) civil rights for women, or 3) civil rights for homosexuals.
Nothing could be further from the truth, as none of those other movements requires suppressing reality and acceptance of self definition.
The civil rights movement that brought political and societal rights on par, almost, with whites in the US very much demonstrates this. The oppressed class were African Americans, or as Martin Luther King would state at the time, "Negroes". Skin color is actually a secondary feature of our appearance and an evolutionary adaption to intense sunlight, which means that the entire concept of "race", as we've noted before, is a patently false one. Race really doesn't exist, but ethnicity and culture do, and nobody could rationally argue that African Americans in general have a culture in the country which reflects their long presence in it, and the origin of that presence being rooted in the crime of slavery.
But here's the thing. You don't sense your self to be black. Your ancestry either goes back to Africans or it doesn't. Under the "one drop of blood" silliness of American culture, you are an African American if you are of mixed ancestry, and almost all African Americans are (lots of "white" Southerners are as well), which is a social construct, but it's one based on a reality. Somewhere, and for the rule to apply somewhere relatively recently, you had an African ancestor.
If you don't, and you claim you feel your self black, you will be justifiably socially derided. And that's because you really haven't endured what African Americans do on a daily basis, and growing up.
In other words, if you run around claiming to be black, and aren't, you are going to be despised by everybody as a fake. Indeed, the proposition is so absurd, it was used as a running joke in the movie The Jerk, with Steve Martin, whose obviously not black, giving the lines "I was born a poor black child" in the opening scenes of the movie. More seriously, Jessica Krug, a professor at George Washington University who claimed to be black, had to resign when it was revealed she wasn't. In fact, over time, Krug to be an Algerian American, a German American, and an Afro Boricua, when in fact she was a white American of Jewish ancestry.
Nobody tried to justify this on the basis that she "self identified" as black.
And nobody demands that you accept her claim, as she feels herself to be black.
Let's turn, then, to homosexuality.
Whatever a person feels the origins of male or female same gender attraction to be, it is. That is, nobody really doubts that there are men sexually attracted to men, or women sexually attracted to women. The question may be why, and what that means, but people aren't faced with claims of "I feel myself to be attracted to the same gender". We know that occurs. That doesn't actually change the fundamental nature of a person's genetically determined gender, however. Homosexual men are men. There's also no doubt about that, and in some odd way, that's the point. The same is true with homosexual women. They may be attracted to other women, but that doesn't mean they aren't women, they are. Therefore, when a person reveals themselves, or is revealed by others, to be homosexual, it isn't as if you have to accept that their morphology and nature is different. It just all remains the same.
Transgender claims, however, are radically different, in that the man claims he's a woman, or vice versa, just like a white person claiming they're black. And that not only doesn't have to be accepted, it can't be.
Indeed, hearkening back to that example, if a white person deeply and sincerely asserted that they were black, when they weren't, it not only would be pointed out, but if it persisted, at a bare minimum the person would be regarded as odd. For most people, it probably wouldn't be so odd that it would be socially destructive (in some cases it could be), but it would definitely be odd. But pretending you are a woman, if you are not, is destructive by its very nature.
We've already pointed out why, but the physical and psychological natures of women are radically different, which is the main reason. It's also, however, deeply offensive to the nature of women, and reduces them to mere attributes, which is insulting in the extreme.
Finally, there's a certain intolerant insistence on tolerance here. Toleration really means that I put with your nature, no matter what I think of it. We do that in order to make society work. For some things it should be obvious that it isn't really toleration that is required, but acceptance, ethnicity being one, but for many things that's not the case. In American society, for example, there are many religious groups and all should be tolerated, but that doesn't mean in any way shape or form individual acceptance is required. A person is free and should be free to disagree with the tenants of a religion, and even vehemently disagree with them.
That's toleration.
Toleration here, however, means accepting a person's self definition, no matter how deluded. We ask that of nothing else.
Put another way, we don't demand that Christians accept that Mohammed was a prophet, and we don't demand that Muslims accept Christ as the Son of God and part of the Trinitarian God. We don't demand that blacks accept Jessica Krug as black. We shouldn't demand that people accept men as women.
Toleration would really mean that if you see a man in a dress, you don't harrass the perseon about it. It doesn't mean you have to pretend the man is a woman.
No comments:
Post a Comment