Skip to comments.Change your species, race? Why not?
Posted on 10/07/2013 7:52:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
File this under, Oh, for crying out loud.
There was a time when planning a family was a relatively straightforward process. A young wife might ask her new hubby, How many children should we have? To which he might reply, Lets just try for one of each.
A few years later and with a bit of luck little Timmy and Tammy are at each others throats, contesting rightful possession of the Fuzzy Wuzzy Brown Crayon.
And all is well in the time-space continuum.
Not so in todays progressive land of make believe. Political correctness now requires that objective reality sit the bench while subjective silliness takes the field. For todays uber-tolerant mom and dad ahem mom and mom or dad and dad, having a child of each sex (or acquiring one as biological limitations may dictate) apparently means a family that looks more like the bar scene from Star Wars than The Donna Reed Show.
Yep, its a brave new world.
The Washington Examiner reports that The 60,000-strong Thomson Reuters
Identities other than man or woman? You mean like turnip? And only nine choices? Why not 10, or 37, or 3,654?
According to the companys annual employee survey, choosing a sexual identity doesnt have to be based on a workers actual sex, but instead a persons innate, deeply felt psychological identification, notes the Examiner.
The survey asks employees to choose from male, female, transgender, genderqueer/androgynous, intersex, transsexual, FTM (female-to-male), MTF (male-to-female), and prefer not to say.
Reuters proffered the questionnaire to achieve a 100 percent rating in the Corporate Equality Index, a political extortion scheme created by the so-called Human Rights Campaign a Washington-based sexual extremist outfit launched in 1980 for the sole purpose of pushing the radical LGBT political agenda.
OK, first, the smaller question. How can anyone now be expected as if anyone ever did to take Reuters seriously? How can we trust this media giant to objectively report the news without bias when, as a matter of course, its diversity policy is rooted in hopeless absurdity?
How can anyone ever again depend on Reuters to accurately and impartially report on matters of human sex and sexuality when it cant even pass a second-grade biology exam and, more importantly, has clearly chosen sides in an ongoing and highly contentious sociopolitical debate?
But there remains a larger question still. If a persons actual sex neednt be rooted in biological reality, then why should anything be rooted in biological reality? If were playing relativist Texas Holdem, lets go all in. As long as were tinkering with scientific and moral truth, why stop at a persons biologically determined and fixed sex? Why stop at gender identity?
Ill wager that next year Reuters scores a 150 percent on HRCs equality index if it offers a category for species identity. If a persons innate, deeply felt psychological identification is all that matters, then who is Reuters who are any of us to discriminate if an employee wants to get in touch with his inner horse and run the Kentucky Derby?
For that matter, what about racial identity? Again, why the intolerant and arbitrary gender-identity narrow-mindedness? Roseanne Barr is a short, obnoxious white woman today, but whos to say that tomorrow she wont develop an innate, deeply felt psychological identification as a seven-foot black man? Watch out, NBA. (I think we can stipulate that, as regards Ms. Barr, obnoxious remains a fixed variable under any conceivable scenario).
Merriam Websters defines reductio ad absurdum as disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion.
Youve just experienced reductio ad absurdum. Species identity, racial identity and, to no lesser extent, gender identity each represent comically absurd contrivances.
But only one of these comically absurd contrivances is actually taken seriously by an alarming number of at least superficially intelligent people.
Really, todays LGBT activists, along with their sycophantic allies (like the frightened little toadies at Reuters) signify the embodiment of reductio ad absurdum. When one objectively contemplates the logical conclusion of each their progressive propositions, one is left contemplating the absurd.
Its a brave new world, indeed. And progressivism sets the bar absurdly low.
Self-identify as an endangered species.
Isn’t there a short story about inmates taking over the asylum?
Doctor Tarr and Professor Feather.
Still, it would be handy to have tetrachromic eyes, or two thumbs like a koala...
I guess no one is getting the irony that it's precisely this contraceptive mentality about human life as "something we make" that leads people to believe that everything is up for grabs.
Hey, I have two thumbs. One on each hand ....
People who identify as genderqueer may think of themselves as one or more of the following:
A thumb and two fingers for a firm grip, and a thumb and index finger for fine manipulation. Almost as good has having an extra hand or two...
Looks like FReepers all agree that it is wrong to use drugs or surgery to maim one's inbuilt healthy sexual characteristics.
Yet --- think this through with me --- almost ALL FReepers are OK with contraception and sterilization, which, specifically and intentionally, directly maim or deliberately sabaotage inbuilt healthy sexual characteristics.
One rarely hears (around here) the counter-argument that, medicine should only be used to enable, rather than disconnect and disable, one's parts and systems; or that Biblically, God gave these procreative, generative powers, and it's wrong to try to "re-engineer" yourself with drugs, devices, and surgery.
Yet that's what the transgender person is doing: reshaping the function of sexual organs (impairing oneself "for health and happiness"!)
Really, it flows from that mentality that "how many kids should we have" should be choked back to one or two, and then --- snip, snip --- transsexual. Er, I mean, transsterile.
The body as raw material--- silly putty --- along the lines of "I'm redesigning myself". No wonder the tranny thing is so unstoppable. It's the logical next step.
So here's what you do. Get yourself one of those ethnicity and genealogical DNA tests. There's bound to be some sort of minority evidence in your background, somewhere.
So suppose you are 0.02% Asian. That's enough! Remember, Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren had Native American status, and she had no evidence for that at all.
“Nothing is certain or proved beyond all doubt” ... Richard P. Feynman ... Physicist ... 26 year old “whiz kid” during Manhatten project ... 1965 Nobel prize in physics.
Right on! I'd go for eagle. Protected, and able to fly.
Ping for later
If I could swim with the dolphins, the soft and gentle dolphins...why can't I swim with the dolphins?
An early experiment. Not entirely successful....
And what is the difference between a BMW and a cactus?
On the Cactus, the pricks are on the outside.
Democrats crossed with cactus: Whole bunch of pricks on welfare.
Some are more trysexual, as in “I will try anything sexual!”