The Magical Thinking of LGBTQ

Thought Police

A woman who calls herself a man can have a baby, but a man who calls himself a woman, unless he were to have a uterus and ovaries transplanted from a genetic woman, cannot. If a man tells you he is a woman or a woman tells you she is a man, the law requires you to act as though it is a fact. If you are malicious and persist in addressing either by their original title; Mr, Miss or Mrs, you can go to prison for committing a hate crime.

There was a time when there were men and women plus a few unfortunate people whose sexual organs were a mixture of male and female. These days a man can feel he is a woman and a woman can feel she is a man or anything in between (called gender fluid) and if either of them want to look like the opposite sex, rather than just feel male or female, they can have hormone treatment or an operation. Even then they will only look like the opposite sex. Neither hormones or surgery will change your genetic sex.

This interpretation of sexuality, if unprovable (how can you read another’s mind let alone operate on it?) is something which you can believe or vehemently disagree with. You might want to argue about it loudly in a pub, write to the papers, or if you are a scientist research it. The transgender movement has no intention of allowing public debate. Transition is a moral quality and anybody who opposes it is ignorant, evil, misguided or a criminal. ‘Transphobes’ must be found, brought to justice and hounded from decent society. No discussion on the subject is allowed except to confirm there is no such thing as a fixed sexual identity, we are all in transition, even if we don’t know it.

There have been regrets and suicides after sex change operations. Two years ago, a postgraduate sociology student at Bath University wanted to find out how many, but under intense pressure from his frightened university authorities he was forced to drop his proposal because, the university feared it would come under intense attack on social media. Unlike ordinary drugs or surgery, only research that comes up with the ‘right’ results should be allowed when it comes to transitioning. We are in the realm of witch hunters, book burners and magical thinking.

In his book The Open Society and its Enemies, written as Hitler’s troops marched into Poland, the Jewish philosopher Karl Popper observed that speculations about the mind can often have more in common with primitive myths such as Voodoo than genuine science. He had in mind the psychoanalytical theories of Freud and Adler, which offer universal explanations for everything. Whatever you do Freud has an explanation for it, even if your actions are contradictory. Freudian fanatics believe that mocking the master’s theory is a sign of mental illness. Any theory which claims to be universally true, while maintaining criticism is further proof that it is right, is a cult. Transitioning, a modern form of therapy culture, is never wrong; it’s your thinking which is wrong. A sign in a ladies’ changing room reads, ‘Having a problem with somebody else’s genitalia, maybe you are the problem?’

Science, this being medicine we are talking science and peoples’ lives, is based on the principle of falsifiability. If you think there is a giant teapot behind the sun you can send a spaceship to look. You don’t have to actually send it, you just have to have a practicable means of proving or disproving your theory. It’s why we cannot prove or disprove the existence of fairies. Similarly, it’s no good looking for the transition teapot and your doubts will only strengthen its believers’ faith that it exists. How could anything which is so obviously true be doubted? Which is why transitioning is defended with such missionary zeal and its critics mercilessly persecuted. Religions have beliefs and in the absence of corroboration (which is never forthcoming) they require enemies.

‘You don’t believe in the Resurrection? This way to the stake.’

‘You don’t believe that the Prophet Muhammad was transported from Mecca to Jerusalem on a winged beast? Let me introduce you to the Saudi state executioner.’

Critics of transitioning are now being rung by the police to ‘check’ their thinking, or taken to the police station, finger printed and locked up. The magic has begun.

Editorial in the spring edition of the Salisbury Review. We publish quarterly – the next edition will be on June 1st 2019 . Subscribe

8 Comments on The Magical Thinking of LGBTQ

  1. That picture looks disturbingly like Mrs May. Has she been cloned? Don’t we have enough to worry about?
    Dame Edna thinks this trans business is a fashion that will pass and has predictably been condemned for such wrongthink. Let’s hope he’s right or where will it end – the ancients turned themselves into horses, cows, clouds and eagles. Can NHS resources stretch to that?

  2. At the beginning of the 1980s a radio reviewer for Time Out, the London listings magazine (very much a left wing rag in those days), declared himself outraged when the presenter of a current affairs discussion program on local radio bemoaned the fact that the word “gay” had acquired an “unfortunate connotation”.

    The reviewer suggested that these obscure backwaters of the broadcast media should be “policed” by volunteers to prevent anyone getting away with expressing that sort of opinion. At the time I assumed the reviewer was just some petty-minded oddball extremist fresh out of university. This was some years before the term “politically correct” came into common use.

    Little did I suspect that policing and suppression of opinion not agreeable to the left would become so commonplace. Are we reaching a point where those of us who fail to conspicuously celebrate diversity will be denounced and expected to submit meekly to re-education or risk losing employment and even freedom?

    • The radio chap didn’t know that ‘gay’ had its current connotation at least 100 years ago, but that’s of no account.
      The suppression of opinions that are disagreeable to some, mostly leftists, or the assertion that only one opinion is possible, is a reflection of the infantilisation of discussion of political/social/ethical affairs exacerbated by any ill-educated fool’s half-baked ideas getting publicity on the web. A sort of Gresham’s Law operates – the bad thoughts like bad money drive out the good.

      • Ill-educated? Really? Just take a look at the the treatment Dr Noah Carl has received from the academic elite at Cambridge University as they cave in to mob pressure. This is something more sinister than the infantilisation of discussion.

        You might say that the diversity zealots are infantile in their beliefs. If that is the case why do the university authorities grovel before them instead of treating them with the contempt they deserve?

        The left are taking territory at an alarming rate. How long before it becomes impossible for a genuine conservative to hold a position in public life?

        • I stand corrected. It is, as you indicate, a moral and spiritual deficit rather than a knowledge one that we are faced with.

    • Delve further into Maya’s history and it appears that she has been feeding other people to the mythical crocodile. It would appear that she has placed herself further down the menu rather than escaped.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.