Thursday, March 24, 2016

Toilet Identity Politics

The Bathroom Wars rage on as the North Carolina Republicans have decreed that public rest rooms and locker rooms are for sex, not what is now called “gender identity”, and the Enlightenistas are all up in arms as if the N.C. Legislature had just brought back burning witches at the stake.

The rationale of sexual segregation in rest rooms and locker rooms, I thought, was to curb promiscuity, but apparently that is as neanderthal and barbaric a notion as racial segregation. But the transgender advocates still want segregation. They just want it based upon gender identity and not biological sex. If I am understanding current gender theory correctly, then gender identity attaches to nothing except a completely subjective feeling. It cannot attach to anatomy because that’s invidious gender stereotyping, and it cannot attach to anything else such as dress, behaviour, etc., for the very same reason. The only touchstone, then, left for gender identity is private feeling, and that’s not a touchstone at all because it can only be verified by the person who has it. If that’s the case, gender identity has as much meaning as the imaginary friends of toddlers have to adults.

It seems to me, then, that the transgender activists want the purpose of segregation in public facilities to affirm private identities, all other reasons being irrational, troglodytic, atavistic gender stereotyping. But if that’s the rationale for what is now gender, not sexual, segregation, then the same rationale can be applied for those who wish to identify as black, white, hispanic, German, Catholic, Protestant, etc. If public facilities exist only to validate private identities, then the dictates of equality demand that all other identities be so accommodated as well. We should have restrooms for all identities, racial, ethnic, religious, and so on. Not only would that make Jim Crow Laws look positively enlightened, we would have nothing but rest rooms in our public spaces! The Bathroom Wars are really quite silly.

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

The exception vitiates the rule

If it is bigotry to say that the human being is sexually dimorphic because such a claim would deny the humanity of the intersexed (or so some gender theorists allege), then by that very same logic the claim that the human is a biped would be bigotry against the congenitally legless.

Sunday, March 20, 2016

One more time

The stated rationale of the anti-miscegenation laws was to keep the races separate. Advocates of the patent absurdity of the legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” insist upon a parallel between the criminalization of interracial marriage and the non-reccognition of same-sex “marriage”. But this is nonsense. If there were a parallel, then the rationale for the non-recognition of ss’m’ would have been parallel to that of the anti-miscegenation laws, i.e. just as the reason for the latter was the separation of the races, so the reason for the former would have to be the separation of the sexual orientations. But actually one of the arguments for “marriage equality” was that the sexual definition of marriage led to pathological mixed-orientation marriages. In other words, the non-recognition of ss’m’ is alleged to have done the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the anti-miscegenation laws did; the former led to a mixing of traits, the latter to their separation. Clearly and obviously the anti-miscegenation parallel is a category mistake, and the only reason why advocates of “marriage equality” insist upon using it is not to illuminate the matter of “equality” (it does no such thing) but simply to slander their opponents as racists and segregationists. The anti-miscegenation parallel, even if it is now court-approved dogma, is simply a very sleazy slur, and I resent it.

So much for a Classical Education

μηδὲν ἄγαν be damned!


Saturday, March 12, 2016

Hey, Police Department of Glen Carbon, Illinois

Seventeen years ago (yes, I know I have way too much time on my hands) an officer from your department told me that in some places 2 + 2 = 4 is an opinion.  So, according to him the certainty of this rather simple arithmetic equation depends upon location.  I used to think that this claim was self-evidently absurd.  But I was, of course, wrong to doubt armed authority.  A person with a badge and a gun can never be wrong.  Because he has a badge and a gun.  Therefore, everything he says must be completely reasonable.  And, so, the claim that the certainty of basic arithmetic depends upon location must be reasonable according to a very simple syllogism:  1)  Anything a person with a badge and a gun says is reasonable, 2) A person with a badge and a gun claimed that the certainty of a simple arithmetic equation depends upon location, 3) Therefore, this claim must be reasonable.

But, then again, if a person with a badge and a gun says that such syllogisms are valid only in some places, then, well, all bets are off.  But I haven't heard an armed, badged person say such a thing.  Yet.  And until one does, I guess I may assume the universal validity of properly-ordered syllogisms.  I just hope a police officer never tells me that he is lying right now because he might shoot me if I doubt him or if I believe him.

Anyway, the above syllogism, absent any police officer's statement to the contrary, is valid, and since it is valid, I would like to ask you, the Glen Carbon Police Department, how the certainty of a very simple and apparently self-evident equation depends upon location.  Would you, please, explain this to me?  I thought I had mastered basic arithmetic in grade school.  I thought I learned that a simple equation is true and certain everywhere, that 2 + 2 is as certain to equal 4 in St. Louis as in New York, in the U.S.A. as in the Congo, on Earth as on Saturn, etc.  But I was very, very wrong.  I apparently was asleep when the teacher explains to us how basic arithmetic is geographically contingent.  And I really feel embarrassed to have missed such a basic lesson, especially now since I am middle-aged and long past the age when I could have blamed my ignorance of such rudimentary stuff on immaturity.  I got to face it.  I am not three anymore.

So, Glen Carbon Police Department, would you please teach me what I missed in grade school?  Please, explain to me how the certainty of basic arithmetic depends upon location.   Pretty please?