===originally published 5/27/2016===
Drop the B? WTF?
That one does not fit. When you drop the B it is possible I
might start taking you seriously. Yea, drop the B baby, and I am NOT talking
about “The Bomb.”
No, the B I’m talking about is the B in LGBTQ. It does not belong there. Of all the letters
in that bowl of soup the B is the only one that is not (holding true to its’
base definition) a way of life that is, by definition, barren and sterile. L’s only share sex with other L’s, G’s only
share sex with other G’s, T’s have no real potential post transition anyway,
they’ve chosen to sacrifice sexual functionality for social appearance, and the
Q’s are simply the induction phase, those so damaged by society as to shift
ranks into any of the first three just as soon as someone tells them where to go.
But B’s? By definition a B can and will share sex with either
gender and are therefore not constrained to be barren as a consequence of
honoring what they present to the world as a defining characteristic of their
life.
To an objective and factual analysis it is clear that B is as
much a politically motivated token among that bunch as is a one legged old black
woman on the payroll of a wilderness construction crew.
(Not that she isn’t a tough old gal and a great chuck-wagon cook
who keeps everyone well fed at lunch, usually has a good joke for when the afternoon
starts looking grim, totally worth her wages, but still, she’s there because she’s
what keeps EEOC off our ass so every competent hand isn’t required to have at
least one parasitic whiner hanging off their belt slowing the whole crew down
to the point we can’t compete and the other bunch wins all the bids anyway
leaving us to starve.)
The B is obviously there, to bastardize a phrase once used
in the realms of juris prudence concerning pornography, “redeeming specie-al value.”
Not social value as in the legal eagle’s arguments, but value to the survival
of the Human species. The B is there so they can claim the political coalition of
their lifestyles isn’t dedicated to specie-al suicide should they ever become
such a majority the remainder simply cannot keep the species alive.
(yes, species is plural, but there are those who argue eloquently
that male and female, for all that they interbreed to produce the Human, are
actually enough different in the hardwire of their psyches as to qualify as
sub-species… but that is, again, a different subject for entertainment when the
kids are asleep and there’s absolutely nothing else needs doing).
The B is there so if an L and a G go back in the closet together,
or even worse *gasp* get caught in that closet with an S, well, they can
still remain part of their social order by claiming themselves as a B.
Seeing that is pretty much a no-brainer to an objectivist.
The B might as well stand for Bailout as anything else, a parachute category in
the same class of things as the “golden parachute” clause in a CEO’s contract.
C’mon, guys. You’re not fooling me. Give the B’s back their
dignity, quit using them for your token one legged old black woman on the
payroll. Let them stand on their own merits and define themselves to the world
as perhaps “Bx” which translates as bi-sexual with my preference for
my own gender defined by x|x < 1. If x
= 1 of course you are NOT a B, you’re L or G.
(defining which moniker should be attached to which range of values for x should give the sociotards and statisticians plenty to play with, safely out of the way of those who actually keep enough surplus resources in society for them to engage with such thoughts in the first place. By way of example? For those who know my writings I’d say my heroine Sundown St. Marie, SQ, would be defined as ( Bx < .125 ) or in other words she’s quite capable of enjoying a sensual relationship with another woman, but her motives for entering into such a relationship are not libidinous but rather to keep the libido from impeding the intimate nurturing elements of the affair)
(defining which moniker should be attached to which range of values for x should give the sociotards and statisticians plenty to play with, safely out of the way of those who actually keep enough surplus resources in society for them to engage with such thoughts in the first place. By way of example? For those who know my writings I’d say my heroine Sundown St. Marie, SQ, would be defined as ( Bx < .125 ) or in other words she’s quite capable of enjoying a sensual relationship with another woman, but her motives for entering into such a relationship are not libidinous but rather to keep the libido from impeding the intimate nurturing elements of the affair)
Which brings me back to saying to the alternate lifestyle
folk “Drop the B, baby, lose that
hypocrisy” and I might, maybe, someday stop thinking of your crew of
folks as nothing more than the mirror image of the Bible thumping lizard brain
war-mongers who will say “There’s a WAR
going on by God, and GOD is on our
side so don’t you dare even mention that bit in Exodus about Thou Shall Not Kill.”
These days, it's hard to make the argument of species-survival since we have more than "filled the earth, and subdued it". If 10% or so of the human race (I suspect that figure is slightly exaggerated, but let's take it as stipulated) choose not, or are unable, to enter into a fertile relationship, that's still 90% who mostly marry and mostly have children. And the planet is still bursting at the seams. So the survival of our species is not in doubt, at least not due to a tithe of us lacking fertile relationships.
ReplyDeleteThe point of the post is socially sponsored hypocrisy, not population control.
DeleteYour quite correct, the 1 in 10 who, for what ever reason, do not reproduce don't challenge the species in terms of raw numbers, but I'll argue that the mindset and mentality they've foisted off on say 30 to 40 percent of the remainder, leveraging off conflicting social definitions, is in the process of skewing the distribution of successful child rearing in dangerous ways. The birth rate is staying up, and it is the poor and ignorant people who are doing it... the so called enlightened and educated don't seem to be producing very many individuals of any real substance. Net result being a population ever more ignorant, ever more easily manipulated, and ever more volatile.
I've watched A Lot of kids coming through this college town, and over the last three decades what I've observed is that the net affect of the LG(B)TQ crew has been to disable and slander in them (they, the children of the "successful" people destined for success and with success a far larger say in things) the very concept of a personal ethic (in regards to ANY subject) as an act of bigotry.
That I do find a threat to the survival of the species, at least, in regards to a)civilized and b)self governing and c)non-indentured.
Hmmm... You have a point about the less intelligent or enlightened folk bearing more children. Not sure it's the LGBTQ folk responsible; seems more like a combination of factors...
DeleteI'll agree with the many, many factors point, but to my(freely admitted unscientific and limited observations) it seems to be the vocabulary and rationalizations of the lgbt crew being used to camouflage what resolves as insecure greed being driven by a materialistic society in the process of imploding. The lgbt folks by rights should claim back their reasoning, or make the others pay royalties, without what they've provided the others would have a hard time not admitting to their real motives.
Delete(needless to say, this is all the cowboy in me soul speaking...)