Saturday, July 15, 2017

The Party of Science continues to beclown itself on gender

Can we at least consider the possibility that the left -- or at least the part of the left that drives the Democrat Party -- is absolutely batshit crazy? How else can you describe the people who think that anthropogenic global warming is etched in stone -- it's a theory, people, with damn little evidence to support it -- but that gender is open to debate?:
But my discomfort with the gender-reveal party goes beyond my standard objection to fanfare surrounding gestational markers—which is primarily that, because we don't celebrate non-pregnancy-related milestones with the same enthusiasm, we're reinforcing the archaic notion that a woman's value rests squarely in her ability to grow tiny humans. The issue with gender-reveal parties in particular is: Aren't they potentially damaging to said tiny humans?

For starters, gender-reveal parties don't actually reveal gender—they reveal anatomy. Gender is a wholly different thing, inextricably tied to the social constructs around it. (Fun fact: Blue used to be the color most associated with little girls, due to its association with the Virgin Mary. But Hitler—yes, Hitler—feminized the color pink by forcing gays to wear triangles in that shade during World War II.) A gender reveal conflates the two.
Think about that for just a second. Celebrating the gender of your child makes you like Hitler. Plus, biology no longer matters. This dumb-ass piece of shit can't even accept that gender is binary. Look down, see vagina, female. See penis, male. Gender does not determine the gender to whom that person is attracted, but it certainly determines the gender of that person. Very few people are born with gender confusion as a biological matter. And by "very few," I mean a vanishingly small percentage -- about .0006 percent of the population.

As for the whack job who thinks you're Hitler for associating pink with your baby girl, well, fuck her, because she's wrong., hardly a conservative bastion, quotes indicating that the pink/girl blue/boy association long predates Hitler:
Ladies' Home Journal article in June 1918 said, "The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl." Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti.
Jeez Louise, can you be much more stupid? No, you can't. And calling you Hitler for buying pink blankets for your baby girl isn't even the stupidest thing this stupid bitch does. She tries to separate gender from anatomy. I'm sorry, but XX on the chromosomes means female. XY means male. That's it, those are the choices. People might be confused for a lot of reasons, but usually when we encounter a person who decides that Position X is true despite the clear evidence that Position Y is actually, true, we call those people delusional.

For example, if I declare myself to be the grandson of Warren Buffett and therefore his heir, it doesn't matter how stalwartly I stand by this "identification," all evidence shows that I am full of shit. Warren Buffett will not be altering his will to include me, because I am delusional.

This gender identity horseshit is the same thing. Gay is different. People are attracted to whomever they are attracted to, regardless of gender, even if that person is of the same gender. Not for me, but have at it.  But when you claim to be a gender you are not, I'm sorry, you have serious mental issues. Unless you are in the .0006 percent of people who might actually be gender-fucked up, you are just mentally fucked up. Gender is not social, no matter what some batshit crazy Cosmo columnists might want to suggest. I don't much care if some Cosmo columnist is "uncomfortable" about a gender-reveal party. That sack of shit doesn't understand science.

No comments: