Is the LGBTX Ideology a WMD? – Part II

This allegedly scientific thesis about ‘many people being imprisoned in the body of another sex’ has no real scientific basis except in very rare cases, although many humans tend to imitate what they are exposed to in their early life and that is why LGBTX activism targets ever younger children to attract them into its fold before they reach maturity. The promoters of what has been made into a dogma are regularly ridiculed when they are unable to justify their contentions before those who don’t share their views. Whereas they argue that ‘A man who feels like a woman is a woman’ or vice versa, they can’t explain what ‘feeling like a woman’ amounts to. Is a woman who prefers wearing trousers and a high-collar shirt a man trapped in a female garb? Is a biological male who harbours fantasies of becoming pregnant a (potential) woman? How much does cultural influence account for those yearnings and should children be left to their own impulsions or whims to choose their gender and impose it on their families, as many LGBTX activists demand? Gender and sex cannot be logically kept apart and sex change operations seem to be the preferred solution for those who believe that the former doesn’t match the latter. Not incidentally that creates a lucrative industry for physicians, surgeons and hospitals, under the euphemism of ‘gender-affirming care’ for people who become lifelong patients, in regular need of hormone blockers, antidepressants and other drugs. Meanwhile, we see male offenders or criminals being sent to women’s prisons (where not so few have been guilty of rape) and transgender males winning sports competitions, to the dismay of female athletes who find themselves unable to equate the performances of those ‘women-by-choice’ or vocation. After working hard to promote feminine autonomy and power, feminists discover that men are joining their bandwagon in female disguise to beat ‘real women’ at their own games.

The underlying logic of the ‘LGBTX community’ as a socio-political construct is untenable. What is common between a billionaire who seduces young men and a male teenager who prostitutes himself in a slum, except for the fact that the latter may be exploited by the former? In the sexual area as in all others, lines must be drawn somewhere; the frontier between the sexualisation of children that the LGBTX movement promotes, and the scourge of pedophilia and child trafficking now acknowledged as increasingly prevalent, is porous.

The policy of encouraging children to change their sex, without the obligation of informing the parents, is raising a furore in the United States and in other so-called ‘progressive’ countries but it is nothing less than sexual abuse and yet people in official positions such as Admiral Levine, the US Deputy Secretary of Health who is either a transgender or a transvestite, champions ‘gender-affirming care’ for toddlers in the name of preventing their future suicide. In response, a parental reaction is mobilising many families around the slogan: ‘Hands off our children’.

The ‘gay revolution’ began with demands for public acceptance, recognition and protection. Then, in the nineteen nineties, as it became politically militant and claimed to have a ‘lifestyle’ and its own specific ‘culture’, with its own neighbourhoods, clubs, restaurants and businesses; it called for legalisation of same-sex unions. Many of its advocates swore at the time that there was no desire for full marriage rights but only for a ‘civil pact’ needed for securing fiscal benefits and inheritance rights (called ‘pacs’ in France) which was duly institutionalised and the matter was seen as settled. Yet predictably, less than twenty years later, as billionaires and powerful politicians lavishly funded and openly supported what had grown into a well-organised and feared LGBTX international lobby, full right to marriage was institutionalised in a rising number of countries always in the name of social justice and equity: ‘marriage for all’ was the catchy battle cry but nobody asked what ‘all’ meant. Does it extend to children or even to animals, given that zoophilia is tolerated as a practice in many ‘progressive’ legal systems ‘provided animals are not harmed’?

The next benchmark was the right for same-sex couples to have children, whether by adoption or through surrogate pregnancy (the ‘rent-a-womb’ business). We have reached the stage where people undergo sex-changes, wed someone of their earlier or current adopted gender (and, or sex?) and raise children borne by a third person impregnated by either one or two of the parenting partners. There seems to be no limits in the experimentation being carried out but it is most likely to be at the cost of the next generations which have no say in the choices that led to their birth. In parallel with the systematic outreach to ever younger children, the LGBTX sect has penetrated big business, in the name of ‘inclusiveness and diversity’. Companies are rated according to their support for the ‘gay’ causes by ‘politically correct’ NGOs and giant funds which control the western financial markets, irrespective of the negative consequences on their reputation and sales brought by the promotion of practices that the popular majority sees as perverse. The massive downturn in the fortunes of the Bud Light beer company is only one case of a self-defeating decision to use a transgender as a brand icon. It resulted in a mass boycott.

Nevertheless,  more and more national societies are bending over backwards to satisfy the LGBT enforcers by dropping courtesy prefixes such as ‘ladies and gentlemen’ and replacing them with the anonymous ‘guys’ or ‘everyone’ since, in certain politically correct environments that are taking over public life, attributing to someone a gender he or she does not accept is a punishable offence. “Liberal democratic’ states are sending envoys to ‘backward’ nations in the Third World to investigate and report on the ‘rights and welfare’ of their LGBT citizens. In short, (im)moral monitoring and policing has become a new tool for retaining control over former colonies and in that sense it has replaced Christian conversion as an avenue for penetration and submission of ‘non-western’ societies.

There should be a place for all people in society as long as they find it, fit in, don’t impose their practices and choices on others and don’t undermine and subvert the culture of the majority. The creation of many new ‘communities’ among otherwise unrelated individuals denotes the breakdown of the traditional social order and its natural categories. In the remaining vacuum, all sorts of sects emerge to provide individuals with a sense of belonging and solidarity. However, when the marginal becomes mainstream, there is no more mainstream and then, society fragments and disintegrates into a boiling cauldron of conflicting congeries and clans, all trying to impose their primacy in a climate of rising misunderstanding, hatred and violence.