I thought androgyny had had its day in the Eighties, but, like acid wash jeans, I guess all things are cyclical. Enter stage Left: in 2017, you can be any gender you want to be. Cock and balls? No problem! Nothing a little hormonal therapy and a boob job can’t fix; you can even keep the twig and berries and compete for the Miss Tiffany’s Universe beauty contest title as a shemale or ladyboy or whatever the designation is now, I’m not up on the nomenclature (don’t ask me how I know about the beauty pageant…). Hell, you could make no cosmetic changes whatsoever and declare yourself a woman (or vice versa).
The cause célèbre of the Left is this kind of weird pastiche of gendered-psycho-sexual-normativity perpetuated by the patriarchy or some such thing, and it’s gotten to the point of being utterly and completely incomprehensible. Or so I thought. Once I started asking the right questions, though, all things became clear to me, as you’ll see in the following paragraphs. I only ask that you keep an open mind. So take my hand, here we go…
If gender and race, and even, improbably, age, are social constructs, why does the Left focus on deepening those divisions instead of dispatching with the “oppressive” narrative? Doesn’t intersectionality only reinforce your superficial notions of identity? “Speaking as a…” what/whoever reduces the human experience to a particular category or set of categories. Why not just speak as an individual? So what, all Chilean hermaphrodites believe the same thing? Isn’t that bigoted and what the Left accuses the “oppressive dominant hierarchical super-structure” of choice of doing? What about being a Chilean hermaphrodite (or gay black man, or worm-self otherkin) makes you an expert on, say, fiscal policy, or Constitutional law?
The insistence on calling attention to one’s race or gender implies ascription to the ideology supposedly being critiqued. Identity politics is only about pointing out differences rather than moving past them, which is again what the Left insists it wants to do. It’s obvious at this point that that is not what most Leftists are seeking, but instead they only demonize whites and particularly white males in an effort to grab some kind of power for themselves. Nevermind the obviously faulty logic, every movement finds having a scapegoat or foil highly useful, and they’ve found theirs. It’s irrelevant, apparently, that many conservative or Right-leaning political movements and counter-movements feature many non-whites, or that Leftist whites are advocating for their own destruction if of course you accept that race is one of the two determinants of power along with gender, rigidifying these co-called binary structures supposedly the object of Leftist de-construction efforts. I suppose sexuality should be included in the discussion as well, but again, a critique of constructivism should hold that you only need to change the narrative since sexuality is immutable.
But wait! Sexuality is based on socially-conditioned responses, right? Hence why women with penises may not necessarily be attractive to the abhorrent cis-het men that need to be eradicated from this earth, or so Trinity College associate professor of sociology (LOL) Johnny Eric Williams would have you believe (#LetThemFuckingDie). How can one be “born this way” then? Doesn’t that mean you can, in fact, “pray the gay away”? If the axis can shift, if there’s room to move, things will move; therefore, can’t a non-binary otherkin learn to love a human being (or a white person, as “Professor” Williams believes whites are “inhuman”; interracial dating, using Williams’s logic, is now akin to dendrophilia or bestiality I guess).
Sexuality, like conceptions of age, race, and gender (as biological sex is now unmoored somewhere out in the ideological ether, aka-the Biology Department at Trinity College), can move along a spectrum; therefore it stands to reason that I could identify as a Michael Clark Duncan replica on Tuesday and a six-year-old Saudi Arabian girl named Aisha on Wednesday…on second thought, scratch that last one. We wouldn’t want any would-be Muhammads getting any ideas! Once we start to pull down the edifice of what the patriarchy calls “reality”, we can finally be liberated and be empowered to be who we were truly born to be.
With this in mind, I’d like to put forth my own theoric wrinkle on social constructivism: penis size as a social construct. Since we can shape our own reality and live that reality unencumbered by actual reality, and reproductive organs we now know are the patriarchal-constructed engines of global warming, then I choose to believe, nay, I know, that my three-inch, bent purple dick is the masculine ideal and furthermore, if using it causing the earth’s temperature to rise a tenth of a degree in the next hundred years is wrong, then I don’t wanna be right!