Pardon Me, Ze

[Editor’s note: This essay brought to you by Kakistocracy.]

Multi-polar pansexualism has advanced on a nearly frictionless rail of late. So briskly in fact that conservatives could barely mount their white flag over the barricades before urinating transvestites were sneering at female patrons for their pussy privilege. Anthony Kennedy’s crayon lint had barely been brushed off Constitution v5.7 before something called gay marriage was logically extrapolated to mean the physical sexes are only a state of mind.

And with that acknowledgement of ancient tradition, the homosexual hassle segued into trans tumult, which is now manifesting in all-out commode combat. The main front of which being largely a clash of whose waste may be deposited in which stalls. I don’t mean to diminish the import of this skirmish, since battles can turn wars. Though there’s an underlying premise of the offensive that hasn’t been widely contemplated.

Though before doing so, you should know that whatever device you are accessing these opinions from relies upon a TCP/IP stack of network protocols for delivery. These are a raft of objective, standardized protocols that are accepted by the innards of every inter-connected machine. TCP/IP is able to move packets of information from A to B because every participating component agrees on definitions of what a thing is, not whether it is morally just. Thus 192.168.0.1 remains a private address regardless of whether I think it should be free to come publicly out of the closet. Functionality results from a standardized framework.

Unfortunately for liberal engineers, every system (including one of human beings) requires an external rather than internal operational template. Everyone must agree on what constitutes a default gateway as opposed to a subnet mask. And if I replace octets in the latter with girlish emojis because they make me feel pretty, then my expectations that this piece arrives for your indulgence should be tempered accordingly. The main provision, understood by every CCIE, is that personal whimsy does not replace system reality.

Of course, canny liberals have a ready solution to that conundrum: discard your model in favor of ours. Unfortunately there’s no firm ground there either since their template is that human identity is fluid and subjective except for white heterosexual men, who are immutable and malign. So if libs want makeup and penises to be “women,” then bras and vaginas must necessarily be something else. Otherwise the terms are rendered–as Nixon might say–inoperative.

If a naked man is presented to a panel who are asked what sex they are seeing, the answer must be available without his input. This is accepting subjectivity’s bitter surrender. And we’re not at all prepared to do that.

While it seems obvious to this observer that any society with aspirations beyond anarchy requires objective definitions of fundamental items such as male and female, the left isn’t exactly seeing the problem. Perhaps the people of Venezuela just need to start redefining anthills into T-bones. I’ll let Justice Kennedy speak directly on that issue.

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.

So stop whining about those empty stomachs in Caracas, and start personalizing your conception of being well fed. Which makes me wonder why we’re not dropping pallets of Planned Parenthood v. Casey decisions on Africa rather than heartless foodstuffs.

One man who must puzzle over this even more than me is New York City Mayor Warren Wilhelm Jr/Bill Deblasio. The Mayor, whose marriage remains impenetrable to poaching from other men, has recently announced rigorous city regulations regarding the mysteries of human life.

Specifically these address a battery of violations that include, but are not limited to:

-Failing to use an individual’s preferred name or pronoun,
-Refusing to allow individuals to use single-sex facilities, and
-Sex stereotyping

The latter is one to which this author will confess multiple infractions–though only under veil of anonymity. Fortunately, the city offers its sex stereotyping underworld certain guidelines for remaining at-large.

The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification.

Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles. Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. Many transgender and gender non-conforming people choose to use a different name than the one they were given at birth.

I’ll have to check city records to determine whether “Ze Klan rides again!” has been claimed, though I see no related qualifier regardless. And note there are fines up to $250,000 for those NYC criminals who don’t pronounce my preferred name with the enthusiasm its exclamation point demands.

All of which being the sort of flamboyant frivolity that assures liberals of their virtue. That is not to say that such gestures don’t bear consequences to non-animatronic human beings. In Washington, D.C., a female security guard recently removed a man from the women’s restroom. The police were subsequently called and an arrest was made. Would you care to guess which party was cuffed and stuffed? That would be the female security guard, naturally. An action her refusal to perform only months ago would have resulted in firing for dereliction. Times move fast, and the future always arrives early.

The security guard was apprehended while in performance of her duties, which surely include keeping men out of the women’s bathroom, because the encroaching man became a woman by virtue of his saying so. A transformation that can presumably be executed (and reversed as convenient) by any intrepid males investigating the changing rooms of female patrons.

Presumably the language and logic of trending legal opinion would permit a person to sex-vary multiple times throughout a day as a chameleon hops from different colored foliage. In each guise, the possibilities of felony stereotyping proliferate. As a result sex, and its primordial human characteristics, will enter that social purgatory of things every one recognizes, but none dare mention.

Though as noted earlier, the real problems with this program will blossom with its underlying premise. Great swaths of societal experience could easily be subject to similar objective to subjective migration. If a person’s sex is what they think it is, then no less is their age–which is simply another item to self-conceptualize, and never one to constrain how we perceive the meaning of life. So as a 67 year-old I’d appreciate my social security check, please. Or perhaps as a rejuvenated 18 year-old I’d like to try high school again. Whichever, the choice is mine alone to make.

For those readers who find such speculation implausible, bear in mind Kennedy’s blithe dismissal of the implications in his 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision which, according to the jurist “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” It so much didn’t involve that formal legal recognition of homosexual relationships, that 12 years later its logic served as the premise for Kennedy himself to do just that. Once you subscribe to the concept of individuals defining their universe, you find the universe to be a surprisingly large place.

I imagine this advance of subjective reality will result in equally thrilling judicial drama in lower courts as well. Those who recall a little dust-up in the quiet town of Ferguson may or may not remember the pinwheeling perjury of its residents. I don’t have the link and so am paraphrasing, though multiple witnesses swore to seeing the gentle giant executed hands-up kneeling in supplication like Willem Dafoe in Platoon.

Several locals were later brought back for questioning in light of subsequent medical forensics that completely repudiated their testimony. Michael Brown wasn’t kneeling, or hands up, or reading Psalms from his Gideon’s bible. The indifferent response from one witness: I guess the forensics guy just had a different perspective.

Precisely. And as reality becomes increasingly fungible, that’s all anyone else will have. What keeps airplanes aloft, houses heated, and bridges from collapsing? That’s for each mechanic, electrician, and architect to define as individuals.

Ahh, the mysteries of life.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!