He is free to make the wrong choice, but not free to succeed with it. He is free to evade reality, he is free to unfocus his mind and stumble blindly down any road he pleases, but not free to avoid the abyss he refuses to see.
Ayn Rand
The above quote is often summarised as, “You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.”
Consider then, the logical and ethical knots the UK Useful Idiots Labour Party is currently tying itself into;
Hundreds of Women Plan Mass Resignation from Labour Over Trans Ruling
For decades now, the party has been running a policy of women-only shortlists to select candidates to fight parliamentary seats. This has resulted in their current ratio of MPs; 101:129 female to male.
Let’s pause for a moment to question again whether equality of outcome is really our preference compared to equality of opportunity. Exhibit A in our proposition that all women shortlists perhaps might not result in the most stunningly intellectual representative for the voters;
Unedifying viewing, isn’t it. Consider whether, in a purely merit-based system of democracy, Diane Abbott would have a) ever been elected as an MP in the first place, or b) been continuously re-elected since 1987.
But back to all “women” shortlists.
The progressive types at Labour HQ decided a few months ago that the definition of “women” included anyone who identified as a woman. Let’s just expand that a little; they don’t need to dress like a woman, have been living as a woman for any period of time, have any medical assessment to confirm their transgender status and certainly they do not have to even consider any kind of hormonal or gender reassignment procedures. Quite simply, if they say they are, they are.
What could possibly go wrong? No, seriously, what could possibly go wrong with redefining fundamental existential nouns with meanings that have been universally understood for the entire history of the species?
Bill’s Opinion
We’re back to the dilemma du jour; the desire to not hurt one group’s sensitivities is being rudely interrupted by, oh I don’t know, let’s call it reality.
The progressive view is that history will judge as dinosaurs those raising the fact that humans are dimorphic. The alternate to this future is, of course, that the progressives are illogical to the point where they can only be suffering from almost clinical levels of cognitive dissonance or are simply mendacious.
Exactly, there have been two sexual gendres since Adam was a boy.
The current science defying multi-gender spectrum status will be laughed upon by the future elders of our society, I am very hopeful of this.
Quite.
I’m more than hopeful, I’m 100% certain. Consider what the alternative is; a world where definitions of words are whatever you decide they are at an individual level.
The entire history of human civilisation is built on a social agreement that words have common meaning. Say goodbye to scientific advance and non-violent political discourse if that agreement no longer stand.