The concept of cultural appropriation sounded like a hysterical liberal faux pas when I first heard it. You want diversity, you want inclusion, but yet you rip people apart when they embrace each other’s cultures. Ridiculous! Your party is eating itself, I thought.
Not batting an eyelash, liberals accepted and subsumed the inconsistent inclusion and appropriation theories.
Simultaneously, liberals embraced the mind-boggling “minority” exception to their cultural appropriation theory. While whites are not permitted to embrace the beauty trends of minority cultures, minorities, on the other hand, are unquestionably permitted to dye their hair blonde to resemble Caucasians. Dare not question these women!
Then, liberals ventured even further out. They decided that yet another, even more divergently inconsistent theory needed to be added to their quagmire of illogical introversions of reality: the gender appropriation exception to cultural appropriation.
Gender appropriation, unlike cultural appropriation, is entirely permissible and even encouraged in the same liberal circles that berate caucasian girls for wearing Japanese dresses or African-American hairstyles. A man, you see, is entirely within his cultural right to succumb to his mental ailments and to assume the identity and privileges of a woman. This is OK and must be recognized as an objective reality, liberals now claimed. They began litigating to force acceptance of gender appropriation.
That is when I stopped laughing. Liberals weren’t just eating themselves; they began interjecting their introversions of reality into our shared world, into our politics, into our laws.
Today, the Supreme Court is entertaining the idea that men can appropriate the female gender and be entitled to a discrimination payout from those who have a problem with it. Our justices are pondering this concept: can a man “transition” into a woman and force businesses to recognize that he is a “she,” then sue for damages if he cannot remain employed as a “she”?
The fact that this issue has been raised is ludicrous. Men and women are different. It is more complicated than just looking at sex organs and physical appearances. Chromosomally, sex divergence is present in every single cell of the human body. This translates to entirely different bodily compositions. Aside from the reproductive differences, men have 36% larger muscle mass than women, in addition to thicker skin, denser bones, and broader lung capacity, to name just a few bodily differentials. Even our brains “work” differently.
Due to the differences in our biology, women’s and men’s sports are separated. Our bathrooms are separated. Laws were put into effect to protect women from the stigma remaining after centuries of unfair treatment.
Can a man, albeit with a recognized mental health ailment, claim that he is now a woman and receive the special protections under the law created to protect women? No.
The transgender movement is not equivalent to a man who simply admires the female culture and wants to borrow our style. The latter is entirely different: it’s called cross-dressing. Instead, transgenderism is gender appropriation and the subversion of laws intended to protect women. It is the idea that anyone can claim to be a woman based on mental health struggle, and that someone’s convoluted view of themselves must translate into a legally-protected facade. And, that the law must bow to the subjective delusion of the few at the expense of all women.
Dr. Paul R. McHugh previously explained the logic behind transgender appropriation of the opposing gender and demand for legal recognition of the same: “For the transgendered, this argument holds that one's feeling of ‘gender’ is a conscious, subjective sense that, being in one's mind, cannot be questioned by others. The individual often seeks not just society's tolerance of this ‘personal truth’ but affirmation of it. Here rests the support for ‘transgender equality,’ the demands for government payment for medical and surgical treatments, and for access to all sex-based public roles and privileges.”
In his amicus brief to the Supreme Court, Dr. McHugh tried to wipe away the political nescience that has muddled the legal issues on gender, comparing sex to blood type in his explanation of how resolute sex truly is: “The language of ‘assigned at birth’ is purposefully misleading and would be identical to an assertion that blood type is assigned at birth. Yes, a doctor can check your blood type and list it. But blood type, like sex, is objectively recognizable, not assigned.”
Even with surgery and hormone pills, and with others around them playing along, they are still men with mental health struggles undergoing surgery to physically appear to resemble women; they are not actually women. An illusion is not equivalent to reality.
Gender appropriation should not just get a “pass” from liberals because somehow they think it’s equivalent to Beyonce getting a pass on “cultural appropriation” when she dyes her hair blonde. Why are liberals sending the message that women don't matter?
In simpler words liberals should clearly understand: STOP APPROPRIATING MY GENDER.