The danger we face being normal and sane

A patron across at another site where I write quotes a headline which mentions Transgender ‘Man’.

I’m thinking we need to counter the foe’s hijacking of language by simply not speaking in it … more easily said than done.

At the same time, we need to be pejorative only with perps, advocates for sicko things … all the others, e.g. children, are victims … real ones, not Marklettes … hardly to be pilloried. A sad, sad situation, as with young thots who are increasingly STD ridden.

This will take not only wisdom but some compassion and once sane people see an acceptable term enter the nomenclature … run with that.  

Part of this thing is purporting not to understand the other person in the argument, e.g. anyone using the alphabet soup approach … LBGBheebeegeebee or CISco kid and Pancho.

For example, anyone referring to another person as “gay” … ah, we say, a non-perverted person full of the joy of life … yes, what’s the issue with such a person? No no, says the other … someone otherwise sexually oriented. Ah, say we … you mean a sodomite? At which he balks or baulks, protesting … at which point we say … sorry, just don’t understand your banter, old chum.

The thing turns firstly on whether it’s pejorative or not. Logic dictates that if a person wishes to identify according to sexual proclivity rather than, say, job description, being man or woman, or according to life experience … if he wishes to be known as deviant and with Pride (meaning deviating from the norm as far as where he inserts his tadger or todger) … if he wishes to be identified as such and has hijacked the rainbow in the sky for that purpose, then “sodomite” is an accurate descriptor … it just describes what he does, nothing more, free of value loading.

The second thing it turns on is if there is personal danger involved for us not to use his ideological lexicon in the least, to use other terms. Those terms need to be both accurate and non-pejorative. For example, that girl in the States (I think it was) who referred to her lesbian nan (was that how she termed it?) … well what’s the issue? Lesbian is non-pejorative, it just refers to what two females do to each other at night, does it not?

Should the kid have mentioned it?  Well that rather depends on whether the” lesbian nan” makes a big deal of it or not herself, does it not?  If the nan does, with her multicoloured, cropped hair, nosebones and bits of wire everywhere, sporting tatts … then that’s something that nan wishes to be known for. If the nan does not, is a quiet mouse or maybe is outgoing in a different way, then maybe others have an arguable case against the kid … jury’s out on that.

But it does raise two spectres, does it not? Free speech, which this site embraces, along with censorship … plus whether there are basic things, red lines, over which we really do not agree, nor should we. An example is calling invaders “migrants” rather than fighting age men with money and alien values, plus violent habits.

We do keep coming back to the terms used, every time, and make no mistake … even at this site we need to be careful because one thing you can depend on is the pushers of these things are the most oversensitive snowflakes on the planet, with the State stoopidly behind them all the way.

A distressing situation for the normal and sane today.