In twenty or thirty years psychiatrist couches are going to be overloaded with people who’s brains have been totally fried and scrambled by identity and the legitimising of their play school dress-ups, play acting and detachment from reality.
The only way to beat this bullshit is with ridicule, derision defiance and by taking the piss.
Essentially what they’re asking you to do is to suspend your faculties, insult your own intelligence and join them in their play acting and dress up delusions and respect their insanity.
They are effectively by law, being allowed to drag you down to their level of stupefying insanity and you are compelled to join them in their wacky hall of concave and convex mirrors and pretend that everything is normal.
I mean, what do you say to some obviously white person, who says he’s black or Chinese or Napoleon for Christ sake?? Or a dog or a rock??
Yes, yes, of course you are. There, there, dear…
How does any sentient human being with a pulse, play along with this crap?
And just how do you identify as disabled (as they suggest is an option) when you’re so clearly not disabled?
As Frank Furudi writes below:
”..Instead of allowing promoters of self-identification to embarrass us into silence, we have to speak out and insist that playing an identity game does not alter the hard facts of biological sex..”
READ ON —
“…Britain’s Universities and Colleges Union has published a report that contends anyone should be able to identify as black regardless of the colour of their skin. That means a university teacher with ginger hair and freckles can now — in all seriousness — assert their black identity and gain the validation of colleagues. And anyone who refuses to go along with this performance of blackness risks being accused of a hate crime.
The UCU’s report aims to resolve the current controversy about whether biological males should be able to self-identify as women and be treated as female. The report concludes with a resounding yes — you don’t need to have a uterus and female reproductive organs to identify as a woman. It also went a step further so you can decide if you are white, black or, presumably, Chinese.
It notes that “our rules commit us to ending all forms of discrimination, bigotry and stereotyping” and declares that the “UCU has a long history of enabling members to self-identify whether that is being black, disabled, LGBT+ or women”. The UCU’s argument about the right to self-identify is another way of saying it is up to everyone to decide how others are obligated to see them.
From this standpoint, your sex chromosomes, biology, physical features or cultural origins are more or less irrelevant when it comes to self-identity. Self-identification renders identity a form of role play. It works as a make-it-up-as-you-go-along performance and you can adopt whatever role takes your fancy.
Biological sex, determined at the moment of conception, is rendered invisible and meaningless through the administrative fiat of rendering it transitory. The transformation of a birth certificate into a statement of identity preference implies the description of a baby is a provisional one that is likely to alter. The premise of the phrase “sex assigned at birth” is that it is the developing child and teenager who will eventually choose an identity — preferably a gender-neutral one — for themselves.
A significant cohort of “up-to-date” parents have embraced the ideology of gender neutrality and adopted a style of child-rearing that avoids assigning a biological gender to their child. Such parents assume they are providing their offspring with the freedom to decide for themselves who they want to be.
Leaving it up to the child” may sound open-minded but its effect is to allow the confusing influences and pressures of popular and peer culture to monopolise the identity formation of young people.
Instead of providing direction and guidance, children are left to deal with a chaotic world dominated by social media, consumer culture and identity politics.
The focus on altering children’s vocabulary is not accidental. The project of purifying of language is motivated by the objective of altering people’s behaviour.
Language serves as a medium through which human relations are ordered and people’s reality is shaped. Thus, socialising children into a gender-neutral culture and vocabulary aims to alter the meaning youngsters attach to their identity and existence.
Such irresponsible behaviour can mess up and confuse the generations to come, which is why we need to embrace the role of the young boy who exposed the pretensions of the naked emperor with the words “he has no clothes”.
Instead of allowing promoters of self-identification to embarrass us into silence, we have to speak out and insist that playing an identity game does not alter the hard facts of biological sex….”