Happy Monday everyone!!! As always, Monday’s post comes to us from Stephen Hall. (I even remembered to change the author this time.) Have a great day everybody!
Nearly everyone in America has for the past few years stared agape at the seemingly suicidal tact of the leftists in pushing extremely hard a trans-gender acceptance agenda. Further, it seemed to come completely out of the blue, making many people wonder if some of the far out conspiracy theories about the government putting something in the water to dumb down America might have a kernel of truth to it.
Fluoride aside, one has to wonder what got into people to suddenly start demanding that society accept, not merely tolerate, people who not only have undergone “sexual realignment surgery” but people who merely claimed to identify as a member of the opposite gender.
Then it just kept getting more and more crazy as many people, including a number of supposedly intelligent people, and by that I mean certain people who had been granted advanced degrees in a system euphemistically called “higher education”, actually wanted to create a third gender classification for those mentally confused and delusional individuals.
Not satisfied with this special allocation and designation, or more precisely because of the special attention and notoriety surrounding it, there was an explosion of claimants to gender identity existentialism. I think we are up to 256 by now, so it is still binary in a way.
However, a large part of this insistence, demand, nay tyrannical imposition was that grown men claiming to identify with women could use the women’s lavatory right alongside other people’s six year old daughters. Theoretically, women identifying as men or so claiming could then use the men’s lavatory as well thus avoiding long lines at the women’s facilities.
If a normal person rejected this demand for any reason, even the protection of little girls from sexual predators, then they were decried as a raving bigot, sexist, misogynist, transphobe, or some other silly lefty concocted slur.
Not only did this bizarre leftist social movement appear to come completely and suddenly out of left field, and not only has it seemed to linger on forever, a lot longer than the foolishness ought to have survived in the digital age, but it seem to be coming from every possible angle of leftist politics simultaneously, as a coordinated attack.
So the question I have to ask myself, is why?
And by why, I do not mean to inquire as to the meaning, purpose, or try to fathom the irrational existentiality of then bizarre notion of changing one’s gender as a social movement, rather I am more curious as to the political motivations of the idea.
Remembering the demographics of the Democrat party, the party of the left, that it is 68% white, prides itself of being working class, union, middle American types, all the time deriding their opponents as out of touch elitists, what has made them abandon all pretense of caring about the opinions of middle America?
While they have not cared a whit about the middle class for decades, having substituted pandering to the poor, the young, the elitists, the elderly and the illegal immigrants (even though they theoretically don’t vote), why pursue the agenda of such a fractionally marginal segment of society while going out of their way to offend what has traditionally been some of their core constituencies?
While it is true the Democrats lost the majority of the evangelical vote, they recently have been spitting on their union workers who have always made up the core not only of their voting bloc, but also the core of their financial backing. There is a large crossover segment in the union evangelicals.
While it is easy to say that they have simply written off the half of their party which lives in red states, as seen in Hillary’s failure to even make an appearance in Wisconsin, it doesn’t explain why they would write them off for such a trivial, fringe issue.
Then another issue which simply will not die keeps coming up again and again about the fictional wage gap between men and women, which only exists if you completely ignore several key factors such as type of employment and variances in employment interruptions due to procreation.
But then the answer was provided by Alyssa Milano: https://twitter.com/Alyssa_Milano/status/955457650157907968
That’s right, the left seems poised to now relaunch the Equal Rights Amendment, but to try to ram through the zombie ERA by trying to extend the deadline for passage by the states by about forty or fifty years.
What do these things have to do with one another? Oh, ye of little conspiracy faith.
The original ERA was stopped in large part by people pointing out that by the language of the ERA, states and businesses would be prohibited from treating men and women as different in any way, shape, or form.
This meant that a business could not stop men from using the ladies’ lavatory. Back in the ‘70s this was such a horrifying prospect that it stopped the passage of the ERA dead in its tracks. What kind of barbaric culture would have men in the women’s restroom? There would be perverts everywhere!
There you have it. If there are already perverts in the women’s lavatory, simply by calling themselves some fictional, invented gender, then what reason could there possibly be to prevent the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment?
But what motive could drive a party to near extinction level stupidity just to revive a fifty year old failed attempt at foolishness? Could their egos be so fragile that they can never let go and admit that they lost on an issue, no matter how obscure and forgotten? Well, yes, but I suspect it is only a means to an end.
Once that is passed the real objective can commence, the push for equal gender pay, closing the pay gap. What? You say there is no pay gap because people simply choose different occupations?
Think about the corporate consolidations over the last few decades, such as we have gone from fifty media companies down to just six. Now consider that the ERA has passed and a company gets sued because the company, on average across its many divisions covering many occupations, does not pay its female employees the same as its male employees.
While that is a bit far fetched, as one would rationally expect that the courts would look at this obvious discrepancy and throw the concept out; just as the court threw out the blatantly unconstitutional provisions of ACA (Obamacare), just as the court would never equate and legitimate homosexual unions as marriage, and just as they protected religious liberties for a cake baker making a wedding cake for a homosexual couple.
Forgive me if my faith in the intellectual capacity of the courts has worn a bit thin. Remember, it only requires one favorable jurisdiction willing to thumb their nose at the rest of the nation to send a multi-state, multi-national company scurrying for cover.
It might not even be necessary to win such a case if certain companies feel threatened into changing according to the rules of CYA (cover your arse), especially if a number of big companies which happen to not fall across those occupational differentials are out in public making a big deal of their voluntary compliance.
The net effect could be engineers getting paid the same as secretaries. Do you imagine that secretaries will be getting paid that much more, or the more likely scenario that the men in those traditionally male occupations would be getting pay cuts?
Do you imagine that our nation’s work productivity will remain one of the best in the world, if engineers, architects, and machinists are making waitress and sales clerk salaries?
It would not happen overnight, but there would be a tremendous drag on the nation’s economy at a time when the nation is up to its eyeballs in debt.
So, how did I do for spinning a new conspiracy theory?