“When all that says ‘it is good’ has been debunked, what says ‘I want’ remains”

Diverse — Drokles on December 17, 2017 at 4:49 pm

“Don’t laugh: I have a serious reason for raising my cats gender-neutral” skrev en kvinde sidste år i Washington Post. Hun havde i omgang med sine katte indset, hvorledes det var frygteligt for mennesker, der insisterede på at opfatte sig selv, som noget andet end det de rent faktisk var, ikke at få omverdenen med på deres virkelighedsforvrængning. Sammenblandingen af kattenes indre liv med menneskers indbefattede ikke de fjollede navne hun havde givet dem.

Men hendes fjollerier er ikke hendes egne, de er en del af en seriøs bevægelse. Den amerikanske tidligere diplomat Todd Huizinga argumenterede, ifølge Pajamas Media, at fornægtelsen af realiteter er den iboende totalitarisme i LGBTQ bevægelsen, “because if it’s obviously not connected with reality, you have to force those who are arguing for reality onto the sidelines”. Og hvor der er totalitarisme lurer volden. Josh Craddock skrev i National Review

Transgender TV star Laverne Cox has said that “misgendering a transgendered person” is “an act of violence.” Another transgender activist, Riley Dennis, argues that common dictionary definitions of violence such as those I examined above are “outdated,” and that “violence” includes “all types of societal power imbalances” that might cause “psychological harm” by making a transgendered person “feel bad.” Nora Berenstain, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Tennessee, adds that using words and phrases like “transgenderism,” “male genitalia,” and “biological sex” is also a form of “discursive transmisogynistic violence.” And on and on it goes.

If “misgendering” is an act of violence, then New York City’s speech code imposing staggering fines for “incorrect” pronoun usage is legitimate. Under the Orwellian theory of speech-violence, refusing to endorse a controversial anthropological claim about the nature of human sexuality constitutes violence, no different from punching an ideological opponent in the face. The same speech-violence theory underlies France’s decision to criminalize expression that exerts “psychological and moral pressure” on women considering abortion.

Of course, such an elastic definition neuters violence of any coherent meaning. Anything resulting from what social-justice advocates label a “power imbalance” — which according to their dogma is just about everything — would then be considered “violence.” Set aside for a moment the question of whether identifying an individual using pronouns that correspond to his or her biological sex or expressing moral disapproval of abortion actually causes psychological harm. The notion that words that make people “feel bad” are acts of violence is frighteningly capacious.

If words that make people feel bad are violence, then people who are offended would be justified in using physical force as a means of self-defense. Some masked campus radicals already cheer this notion, and welcome it as a convenient excuse to go on riotous rampages to stop controversial speakers from invading their safe spaces with ideas they dislike. Those who care about the free exchange of ideas have cause for concern.

Og venstrefløjen fører krig mod realiteterne gennem en konstant fordrejning af ordenes betydning. “Language is not language unless it is communal, and it cannot be communal unless it can refer, quickly and clearly, to the things in front of our noses: to husbands and wives and hats.” skriver Anthony Esolen i The Public Discourse

Now, sex is the first thing we notice about someone, and the last thing we forget. It’s easy to see why this should be so. It cannot possibly be to any living thing’s advantage to be confused about male and female. As it is, sex is far more strongly marked upon the human body than it is upon the bodies of dogs or cats or horses or many of the species of birds. A man’s face is not like a woman’s face. A woman’s voice is not like a man’s voice, even when the woman is Greer Garson and the man is Frankie Valli. A man’s shoulders do not look like a woman’s shoulders, and a woman’s hips do not look like a man’s hips. Men and women differ down to their very hair, as anyone can perceive who looks at a woman’s smooth chin or a man’s bald pate.

Ordinary and healthy people love that it is so, and on those exceedingly rare occasions when you cannot determine someone’s sex from a glance or from one moment on the telephone—and some people will go through their entire lives without a single such experience—we feel that it is strange and disconcerting, just as we would feel if we were in the presence of someone who was born without arms. We are not talking about a mere statistical norm here, but about what is paradigmatically human.

To pretend, therefore, that we do not know what we immediately and urgently perceive is to do violence at once to human nature, language, the possibility of a shared life, and the intellect’s capacity to apprehend reality. If I cannot say, “There is a man walking down the street,” then it is hard to see how I can make any reliable judgment about anything at all that bears on human existence. If I cannot say, “Joey is going to grow up to be a fine man someday,” then what in life is left to talk about? Everything else is less certain than sex. We may disagree about whether President Eisenhower was a good leader of men, a loyal husband and father, or a pious Christian; but if we cannot agree that President Eisenhower was a man, then speech itself is but sound and fury, signifying nothing. Or, rather, speech collapses into action, and reason lies prone before appetite. Speech delivers the bribes and threats of people who want what they want and do not care overmuch how they get it.

LGBTQ bevægelsen og venstrefløjen med den, påstår at de vil have mennesker til at føle sig trygge uanset deres sexuelle identitet, skriver Esolen, men i realiteten vil de det modsatte. De søger at gøre normale mennesker ubekvemme til mode ved at frarøve dem, hvad deres sanser fortæller om det indlysende. Normale mennesker går på æggeskaller fordi samtalen er mineret med potentielle moralske transgressioner og ethvert fejltrin er et oplæg til yderligere belæring og aggressiv moralisering

The inventors of such ugly and meaningless collocations as “xe” and “zir” do not want to enrich the language, and they do not want us to probe more deeply and sensitively into the realities of male and female. They want to impoverish the language and to prevent us from acknowledging things about men and women that even little children perceive.

(…) It would infect common sense with confusion and madness. It would render people incapable of obvious judgments: so that you cannot say that Laurie is “strong for a girl” because she can do fifteen unmodified pushups, or that little Mike needs a father in his life, or that every culture known to man has celebrated the union of man and woman in marriage. And that prompts the question: why should anybody want to do this to other people? Cui bono?

Det er grundlæggende en krig mod familien, skriver Esolen. Normale mennesker kan lide realiteterne og finder glæde i at se drenge spille fodbold i parken og piger tegne på verandaen. Normale mennesker river gerne et hus ned fordi det er unyttigt, grimt eller faldefærdigt, men de ville aldrig rive det ned fordi det er smukt. Den naturlige orden er smuk, med dens to køn og kulturens orden, huset, er smukt med ægteskabets forpligtelser.

Overskriften er C S Lewis og jeg har i al min udannethed bare planket citat fra en National Review artikel om de transkønnedes opløsning af kvindesporten.

0 Kommentarer »

Ingen kommentarer endnu.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress