A libertarian writer at The Federalist published a lurid propaganda piece on gender pronouns and the totalitarian subjugation of the unsuspecting masses. He appeals to them to buy into this “fit the square peg into a round hole” narrative on gender confusion–while promoting and codifying other deleterious forms of perversion and wickedness.
What most people don’t grasp is that these stealth puff pieces are meant primarily to legitimize societal ills not by making them questionable, but rather, seem reasonable and worthy of freedom of choice. As of late sites like The Federalist often use sophistry to legitimize a very contrived narrative surrounding decadent human destruction.
That means, as a libertarian, I don’t care if you want to marry your dog. Go ahead— marry several if you want. Canine polygamy is fine with me. Unless you want to marry my dog. I would insist that she be first sister-dog. Or canine-wife. I don’t know what to call it because the Gender and Sexual Preference Terminology Council has not yet released its latest style guide, which rumors say will include an expanded view on relationships.
His “libertarians don’t care what you do” schtick is not the intent rather, he is disingenuously lampooning the idea of marrying dogs with the aim of legitimizing that bestiality could be considered a viable choice (while simultaneously doubling down on the destruction of marriage altogether as the leftist narrative must always invalidate marriage between a man and a woman, hence he “agrees” with bestiality).
LGBTQ-etc. issues are also none of my business (note to trolls: I am not equating gays with dogs, okay? So don’t start). But I am going to make some observations about the subject, fully realizing that as a cisgendered person, I have no right to do so.
He is most certainly equating gays with dogs. Otherwise why make the distinction? Yet in tandem he is attempting to appeal to the “bigoted” sentiments on the right by using the gays = dogs stigma then fully pivots and placates to the left by using the very same language used by LGBTs– calling himself “cis” and framing the argument from a “cis” standpoint makes it palatable.
Anyway, if you wake up this morning identifying as trans female, it doesn’t affect me. If tomorrow, or even later today, you present as gender-queer, that doesn’t affect me, either. Again: NOMB. Almost nothing you do as a non-cisgendered person or person with nontraditional sexual orientation has any effect on me. So go for it.
This is before the next few paragraphs he “laments” in having to use pronouns or face heavy fines in New York City for “misgendering” transpeople. Although him being forced to use any elaborate gender pronouns at all is already encroaching on his precious “liberties.” If “the law isn’t forcing him to do it, it’s none of his business,” that is until the law gets too cumbersome it becomes impossible for him to ignore and subsequently promote in articles on The Federalist.
We libertarians get particularly choleric when people try to use government force to curtail our freedoms, like speech. Telling me how to speak is just as bad as trying to shut me up.
Guess what, buddy? Your freedoms are already curtailed when you have to attach a convoluted emotional clause to any and all support or criticism you offer the LGBT community. “I’m not homophobic, I have gay friends” is the sister pseudo moral equivalent of “I’m not racist, I have black friends.” Nonetheless, this isn’t his message–he is here to promote evil and deviance.
But if a nine-year-old decides that I must use the pronoun “them” to describe one person, and I screw up, I can get fined, or worse, go to jail?
Just as he legitimizes bestiality, he is legitimizing that young children can make the legal and moral decision to be transgender. Never mind the incomprehensible and disturbing notion that being a transexual child is something to be realized, accepted and celebrated in Western society.
He then goes on to wax pompous over the concern that gender pronouns are being twisted to further the liberal agenda.
I’m beginning to suspect the underlying goal is to render leftist rhetoric both grammatically and intellectually incomprehensible. That would save them a lot of hassle in the concepting department. This new gender-babble has the potential to wreak havoc on all manner of human interaction.
Wrong. The underlying goal of the left has always been to render rightist rhetoric entirely obsolete. By ceding ground to complicated pronouns, labels and “gender-babble,” the left has ruled any reasonable common sense truth obsolete altogether–and has made way for the promotion of gay marriage, bestiality and transgender children to be the aspirations of modern society.
The gist of The Federalists’ message isn’t that they care about our alleged “liberties” but that they care about furthering an agenda that has promoted and achieved devastating societal destruction at every turn.
It’s disturbing that this civilizational rot is being promoted so stealthily, even moreso by charlatans who prey on the sensibilities of people whose well-meaning human desires to belong to a like-minded community will gleefully lap up their distortions and lies. The good news is, yellow journalism clickbait sites are dying. And sites like The Federalist are on life support.