How Many Genders are Fluid?

Dr. Turley discusses where Trump is headed with queer theory. [Hint: to the trashcan where they keep busted ideologies]

This isn’t the first roll-back on the fluidity wave theory of genders; that happened in May. Back then, the website Buzzfeed ran with a scary headline, “The Trump Administration Just Rolled Back Rules That Protect Transgender Prisoners”. Here’s part of it:

[…]

The Bureau of Prisons now “will use biological sex” to make initial determinations in the type of housing transgender inmates are assigned, according to a notice posted Friday evening that modifies the previous policy.

[…]

The shift comes after four evangelical Christian women in a Texas prison sued in US District Court to challenge the Obama-era guidelines, and claimed sharing quarters with transgender women subjected them to dangerous conditions.

Their complaint alleged housing transgender women — whom it calls “men” — along with the general female population ”creates a situation that incessantly violates the privacy of female inmates; endangers the physical and mental health of the female Plaintiffs and others, including prison staff; [and] increases the potential for rape.”

[…]

Wel, duh. Only those who believe they’ll never go to prison would feel Obama’s policy was a good idea. The lemming Left can only ‘feel’, their ability to reason has long since atrophied.

The New York Times opinion piece (or was it labeled ‘news’ again?) only speaks about a “leaked memo”. It provides no text in the bumpf and no link to the original. That’s because they have an inside source who would be fired from the Permanent Bureaucracy for doing something illegal, and leaking memos to the press is illegal.

My opinion? To continue the metaphor, lock the two sexes into legal concrete and let the deeply frivolous go play with themselves. Especially the pitiable beta male who “married” another guy, the latter claiming his ‘gender’ is canine and has a whole schtick to go along with his delusion. Fido needs a psychiatrist – or a dad who tells him to grow up. So does his “husband”.

Public Spaces and Private Faces

In a video from last week, Paul Weston inveighs against the easily offended, among them the Reverend Cressida Dick*. And he goes to bat for Boris, who complained,observed, remarked upon that ugliest of female garments, the burka bag. And for that sin, the Hon B Johnson was vilified by the usual suspects:

*If I were a lesbian (no, I’m not) as is Chief Commissioner Dick, I’d change my name lickety-split. To something more dignified and Latinate – perhaps “Phallus” would be more in keeping with her exalted position.

Paul mentions an essay by Roger Scruton on taking offence. I looked for it and as feared, found it locked behind the paywall of the UK Spectator, and a gilded paywall, at that. Imagine! They want nine Euros a month for a subscription. Sheesh. Or is that pounds? Never mind; it’s still outrageous. I’ll stick with the free American Spectator. It’s the ones I steal from consistently, as I do with Dr Turley, that I feel obliged to pay.

Meanwhile, here’s a chunk of the relevant material from an English website I plan to investigate later. They clipped this from Mr Scruton:

The emerging witch-hunt culture would be an object of half-amused contempt, were we still protected, as we were until recently, by the robust law of libel. It is still possible to laugh at the absurdity of it all, if you sit at home, avoiding contact with ignorant and malicious people, and getting on with real life – the life beyond social media. Unfortunately, however, ignorant and malicious people have discovered a new weapon in their unremitting assault on the rest of us, which is the art of taking offence.

I was brought up to believe that you should never give offence if you can avoid it; the new culture tells us that you should always take offence if you can. There are now experts in the art of taking offence, indeed whole academic subjects, such as ‘gender studies’, devoted to it. You may not know in advance what offence consists in – politely opening a door for a member of the opposite sex? Thinking of her sex as ‘opposite’? Thinking in terms of ‘sex’ rather than ‘gender’? Using the wrong pronoun? Who knows. We have encountered a new kind of predatory censorship, a desire to take offence that patrols the world for opportunities without knowing in advance what will best supply its venom. As with the Puritans of the 17th century, the need to humiliate and to punish precedes any concrete sense of why.

I recall the extraordinary case of Boris Johnson and the burka. In the course of discussing the question whether the full facial covering should be banned here, as elsewhere in Europe, Johnson humorously remarked that a person in a burka has a striking resemblance to a letterbox. He was right. A woman in a burka resembles a letterbox much as a man in white tie resembles a penguin or a woman in feathers resembles a chicken.

I like his arch correspondences; is he covering his tracks with those similarities? Sometimes I watch fat feathered chickens strutting and clucking; that’s when Walter Mitty’s wife comes to mind.

But I can see the faces of penguins and chickens. A woman in a burka? Not so much.

NOTE: Paul is a sly divil. See what he says at the end, hoping to catch us Americans unawares. Fortunately, me own mither used that word.