Monday, January 04, 2016

Tory MP: what does it matter what someone's sex is?

I've often written that liberals want to make our biological sex not matter. Just to help prove my point here is the latest offering from a UK MP, Maria Miller. She wants a person's sex to be removed from documents such as passports and driver's licences. She said in support of this:
As a society and a government we should be looking at ways of trying to strip back talking about gender...what does it matter what someone's sex is?
She is not a radical communist but a member of the Conservative Party - as such she is an establishment liberal following the state ideology.

I want to stress this point because there are plenty of Daily Mail readers who criticise her in the reader comments, but it is mostly along the lines that she is stupid or that it is political correctness gone mad.

She is not stupid. She is someone who is clever enough to understand the logic of the ruling ideology, she just isn't clever enough to consider the destructive aspects of it. In a sense, she is a woman trapped within the intellectual and moral assumptions of her own times.

Nothing will change until the state ideology is clearly identified, effectively criticised and finally jettisoned.


  1. Well said; ideologically and linguistically. A perfect example of the illogical, senseless, disconnect and brainwashing that manifests in both liberals and conservatives who now attempt to discuss and to make sense of sex differences as they make policy. We're incapable of putting it into words. Maria Miller is as confused as any. She says that she wants to "strip back the talk about gender", when what she is talking about, is sex. Somewhere in her brain, she knows that something in wrong, so she subconsciously doubles back to set it right; "...what someone's sex is?" But, if you explained that to her, she would stare blankly, then move on to her next policy point.
    I agree that we can "win this" linquistically, since sexual dysfunction is now hip and is actually encouraged, but that we lost it via language in the first place (see "gay" rights), and that inorder to even begin to set it right again, we have to first take back our language. Without the language, we all talking gibbberish to the powers that be.
    Concepts like linguistic determinism, psycholingquistics, and relativism are about the limiting and determining structures of thought, the effect on our cognitive thought. It's what ad sales is. It fashions political speak. I'm no expert or student, but those who propagate these sexual dysfunctions and clambor for their own special civil rights, are. Look at After the Ball, 1989. Homosexual strategists knew then, what the feminist/gender right industry knows now, and have taken to a new level. They know that what and how you say something means more to most than any "naked" truth. "Homosexual" became "gay" and unimaginable special rights were won and societies won over. It was not that complicated. REMOVE the SEX. Homosexuals become "gay" neighbors, parents, and community leaders and celebs. REMOVE the SEX, and Bruce Jenner becomes Caitlyn, and the new "gender" community leader and celeb.
    But, talk exclusively about the SEX; about sodomy and about the fundamental underlying, irreversable homosexuality of "trans-whatevers" and "gays", and the conversation is brought back down to the very uncomfortable truth, the truth that all of the linquistic machinations now successfully manipulate to obscure. Under it all, it is same-sex sex. Who among us always begins there and keeps the discussion there?

  2. I realize that I'm a distraction, and that I didn't directly respond to your larger, important point. I'll grab my football and go outside for a while. Thanks for letting me vent. Buck

  3. "Nothing will change until the state ideology is clearly identified, effectively criticised and finally jettisoned."

    The State ideology in Britain is communism. Neoliberalism is another word for Communism without the negative connotations which would make it unacceptable and it is intended to have the same destructive effects and the same end point as communism. This is a wealthy oligarchic elite with full control of Government, education and mass media and an impoverished powerless, slave population with no influence over policy.

    There is little chance of this ideology being overthrown. The majority of the population are docile sheep and walking blindly and complicitly into self destruction. Unless the sheep wake up and physically overthrow the Government, things will continue as they are with communist control increasing.

    1. I disagree that the state ideology is communism. Liberalism has been entrenched within the political establishment for generations. Here is British PM David Cameron:

      "today we have a Conservative Party … which wants Britain to be a positive participant in the EU, as a champion of liberal values."

      And here is UK newspaper columnist Theo Hobson:

      "All we seek is a reassertion of liberalism as the nation's common ideology."

      The truth is that members of the political class identify as liberals and they follow the logic of a liberal politics.

    2. It is true, though, that most of the population is docile and that a liberal elite controls the institutions of society. That does mean that you cannot begin to change things from the top down - that isn't going to happen. What you can do, though, is to begin to carve out space for your own non-liberal view. That is the point we are at.

    3. "I disagree that the state ideology is communism. Liberalism has been entrenched within the political establishment for generations."

      I've been reading Richard Pipes' book on the Russian Revolution. He makes some interesting observations on 19th century liberalism. The most important point is that there is no essential difference between the aims of liberals and extreme left revolutionaries. Both want to reshape human nature entirely. Both are products of the Enlightenment. Both are ardent materialists. They differ only as to the means to be employed to bring about Utopia and to create the perfect Socialist Man (or the perfect LIberal Man).

      And an equally important point is that if forced to choose, liberals will support the far left extremists.

      Our most dangerous enemies are the "moderates" - they are not moderate at all.

    4. Yes, the overlap between liberalism and communism would make a good topic for a post. Both are forms of political modernity with similar end points.

    5. Hi Mark, a great read along these lines is Takedown by Paul Kengor. He explains at length that while liberalism is not Marxism, it, sort of, borrows the sentiment: or as you say, "has similar end points."

      Kengor begins with Marxism, social communes in the US, Americans going to communist Russia, Frankfurt School profs (namely Marcuse), penetrating US Unis, then grads taking communist inspired thought in the form of liberalism to the public institutions.

      All with marriage as the recurring theme.

      It's well worth the read.

  4. Please correct: "I agree that we can "win this" linguistically," to NOT "win this" linguistically.