Andrew Doyle’s monologue is one of the more important I’ve heard in my life. I did know all of this. He’s telling the truth. Women and homosexuals are being pressed from all sides. Sex-based rights are under siege. I’m frustrated by the fact that so many people around me not only don’t understand this, but couldn’t understand it if I attempted to explain it to them—and would call me names if I actually tried. I can’t speak like Doyle. Doyle speaks for many. The least I thought I cold do is share his speech. So I did. Let’s see if I get in trouble for it.
In recognition of Pride month, the mayor of Green Bay, Eric Genrich, has raised a pride flag outside City Hall, showcasing his support for the LBGTQ+ community. Positioned just below the American flag, this pride flag serves as a symbol of acceptance and inclusivity, according to the mayor (the same mayor who bugged City Hall). Governor Tony Evers has raised a pride flag in Madison, as well. However, the flag flying beneath the American flag over at City Hall is not the Pride flag but the flag Doyle suggests folks discard—the gender ideology flag. Evers also raised the Pride Progress flag. Of course, had they not, they would have had to endure the hysterics and risk violence from trans activists. But this is not why they hoisted Pride Progress instead of the Pride flag.
Earlier this year, Genrich vetoed a proposed city flag policy, breaking a tied vote of 6-6 in the Common Council. The proposed policy aimed to limit the flags displayed on city flagpoles to the national, state, city, and POW/MIA flags. I don’t think any seat of government should fly any flag but those common to us all. We are all citizens of the nation and residents in our state. These flags represent the people and symbolize the principle of collective self-government. I do not accept gender ideology, nor does gender ideology accept me, so why is that flag flying over over my city and state? That’s not an inclusive act. It is, in fact, exclusive, as Doyle explains in his monologue. And it is divisive, asking me to salute a flag that denies women and homosexuals are really existing personalities.
Of course, I love seeing the rainbow flapping on poles in my neighborhood. There’s one flapping near me now that many conservatives would find sacrilegious because it conjures Old Glory. It’s the one I have shared above. I think it’s lovely. If the mayor is going to fly a movement flag on common ground, I’d rather it be the flag of gay liberation and not the one that represents those who call lesbians bigots for refusing to have sex with persons with penises.
* * *
From the Daily Signal: “The Associated Press directs journalists to abide by transgender ideology while denying that such an ideology exists.” The new directive is a clear indication of an agenda to dissimulate the ideological character of a political movement through the systematic control of language. This is Orwellian as hell. As I reported recent, NIH recently rolled out its compelled speech agenda (see NIH and the Tyranny of Compelled Speech) and the APs compelled speech agenda looks highly similar.
This is part of a greater epistemic project to manufacture the false perception that claims requiring proof have been proven and are no longer subject to mention, let alone debate. This is a propaganda technique I have tagged “strange alchemy,” inspired by Jeffrey Reiman passage in The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison: “A strange alchemy takes place when people accept uncritically the legitimacy of their institutions: What needs justification becomes proof of justification.” This is the work of the Cathedral, where faith-based claims are taken as true by appealing to authority (power + legitimacy), reinforced by penance and excommunication.
Gender ideology is most definitely an ideology. Given the supernatural claims its proponents make, I classify it as a religious ideology. At the very least it is quasi-religious and antiscientific. An example of this is found in the demand that AP journalists accept and convey the assumption that sex is “assigned at birth.” Sex is neither socially ascribed nor achieved. Sex is identified or recognized at birth (and that determination is rarely in error). It is therefore not “assigned.”
As for the religious character of gender ideology, consider the doctrine that a “gender identity,” recognized by attitudes and behaviors in a child that appear to align with culturally and historically specific sex roles and stereotypes, can at some point during gestation become trapped in an opposite-sexed body, a condition with a diagnosis prescribing a medical-industrial ritual that seeks to release (“affirm”) the gender identity through hormones and surgeries, hypostatizing the stereotype, personifying an abstract concept, giving it substance and treating it as a distinct and tangible thing, thus transforming the person into a living simulacrum of an abstraction. This is what the AP demands its journalists frame as “gender affirming care.” Journalists may not called this “mutilation.”
One wonders what AP journalists are expected to call the cultural and religious practice of cutting off a girls labia and clitoral hood, and sometimes the clitoris itself, in backwards cultures around the world. After all, female genital mutilation affirms that the girl has become a woman, a set of role expectations that does not include sexual enjoyment or bodily integrity. (See The Problem with Parental Rights.)
freedom and reason 