The year: 2005. The city: New York. The place: a nice restaurant — the kind with bathroom attendants who hand you a towel after you finish your business. I was having dinner with some LGBT colleagues when I excused myself and headed to the facilities — one labeled for men, the other for women, facing each other across a small hallway. Between them stood an employee, who looked me up and down and opened the men’s room door for me.
How polite? Hardly. Instead of thanking him, I explained how presumptuous he had been in deciding my bathroom preference for me. I tried in vain to explain how “gender identity” (the way individuals perceive themselves) is different from “biological sex” (generally indicated by a person’s genitalia, or sex assigned at birth).
Apparently, delivering lectures to working class people for being insufficiently PC is the very definition of Civility to the Gay Left.
To normal folks, it’s just obnoxious.
Seriously, any pretentious twit who sees an act of politeness as an opportunity to lecture on political correctness (thereby signaling their PC superiority) is a douchenozzle. Full stop.
If any social juicebox wanker asks me (as they are taught to ask) “What pronoun should I use for you?” My response will be, “How dare you! I refuse to let you objectify me and deny my humanity be reducing me to a pronoun in service of some political agenda. It’s degrading and dehumanizing and I refuse to participate.”
My preferred pronoun-for of address from wait-staff is, “Yes, Mi’Lord. Of course, Mi’Lord! A thousand-pardons, Mi’Lord…. This way, Mi’Lord”. …Along with some appropriate groveling and requisite scraping.
Though typically I find a bathroom attendant annoying — unless he’s humpy, naked, and his collar is chained to the wall while awaiting my convenience…
Do people still use the adjective “humpy” for guys?
I don’t understand how anyone can support putting young girls at risk of perverts to satisfy these people except communists. what did these people do for the couple of hundred years we have had toilets? all of a sudden they need to use the girls room. I think this is the leftist cause turmoil strategy.
Yes – if the guy in question is J.J. Watt. *DROOL* 😉
Regards,
Peter H.
“How dare you! I refuse to let you objectify me and deny my humanity be reducing me to a pronoun in service of some political agenda. It’s degrading and dehumanizing and I refuse to participate.”
That’s why I refuse to use the word “gay” (except with ironic/mocking quote marks) to refer to persons afflicted with homosexual desire — that usage of “gay” was invented and is promoted to further a political agenda.
Being gay isn’t an affliction. The usage of the word gay to refer to gays isn’t a political agenda.
I always believe in being polite so I always use the genderless designation of a-hole or a-hat for liberals.
Hanover, any time a biological function does something other than it’s biological intention, it is an affliction, such as, say, sickle-cell anemia, which makes a person more resistant to malaria, but has side effects that, in a malaria-free world, can obviously be considered an affliction.
It cannot be denied that the biological function of sexual desire is reproduction. When that desire is towards something that will not result in reproduction, that can be considered an affliction, even if benign.
There are plenty of afflictions which can be considered benign and are not treated unless they interfere with other more important functions. I, for one, am afflicted with skin tags. However, no doctor will treat them unless I ask them to, and no insurance will cover the removal, since they are considered benign. They are still an affliction.
But, yes, the use of the word “gay” *is* a political agenda, intended to remove the negative connotation that accompanies the word “homosexual”, just as “african-american” now supercedes “black” which superceded “colored” which superceded “negro”, each of which was abandoned when they grew accepted and then used by people in a negative manner.
Even now, when someone says that something is “gay” it is getting a negative connotation. Do not be surprised if the word gets replaced yet again.
@1: Ted – wish I’d said that.
Craig, I don’t have conversations with & won’t be lectured to by those that consider their natural sexual orientation as an affliction, compare it to skin tags or who are subject to self-loathing & need therapy of some kind, away from those of us who are secure in our own natures. … & no, the word gay has no political agenda, never really did when it was first coined years ago as just an easier & just less technical label for some people. Whatever its original intention, by multiple sources; it’s long since lost any political coloring whatsoever.
I don’t care who or what Ilion is or its intentions, which are unverifiable at this point.
With regard to gender, when the sex of the person is not clear, I use the pronouns they/their/them which has a history going back to Chaucer. I am not about to learn a new list of pronouns to refer to less than 1% of the population.
Call me gay, call me a f@g just don’t call me a puzzy
Congrats to Bruce and his partner on their Gay Wedding
I’m not a fan of the use of “gay” for homosexuals, or even its more restrictive meaning of male homosexuals, on linguistic terms. Gay used to mean, and still does although most people don’t know it, light-hardheartedly cheerful. There is no word to replace that.
But going back to the article, bursting into a lecture as a response to a polite gesture is massively rude and shouldn’t be done. I would be embarrassed to be seen in the company of someone who would do that.
And Hanover is a mild example of the college students who need safe spaces, because they don’t want to be confronted with an opposing point of view.
You know who else doesn’t care about your gender identity? Polar bears. Because to them, meat is meat. So would you rather deal with us, who don’t really care about your gender identity but won’t do you physical harm, or take your chances with the polar bears on some inhospitable spit of land north of Canada?
Yet again the gay stereotype of proving your manliness by being mean to the wait staff.
“2.I don’t understand how anyone can support putting young girls at risk”
You see if not for this the left would have to go after the Soros 1%.
While one gay cake goes unbaked, or one man in a wig is denied access to the little girls bathroom, the leftist fight against the 1% can wait.
I shall have to write Big Gay Steve’s Guide To Dealing With Petulant Puffs.
Chapter One: How To Bitchslap Without Leaving Marks. Don’t date more than one guy named Mark at a time, you are better off single than in a bad relationship.
“What pronoun…”
Correct reply: “What do I look like?”
Hanover: “Craig, I don’t have conversations with & won’t be lectured to by those that consider their natural sexual orientation as an affliction, compare it to skin tags or who are subject to self-loathing & need therapy of some kind, away from those of us who are secure in our own natures. [blah, blah, blah]”
Translation: I am a proto-crybully. I am so insecure in my unnatural “natural” sexual orientation that the mere mention of the fact that sexual desire is naturally oriented toward reproduction requires me to seek my fainting couch, as though I were a Victorian maiden (except for the chastity, of course). I demand my safe-space!
Hanover: “The usage of the word gay to refer to gays isn’t a political agenda.
… & no, the word gay has no political agenda, never really did …”
Riiiiiiiiight! That’s why pre-pubescent boys need to be labeled “gay” as soon as possible, as just one example. That’s why the hero-worship of an older-than-himself (youngish) adult-man-not-his father (that is, the transfer of his natural hero-worship from his father to another man, generally closer to himself in age) that almost every boy goes through has to be re-interpreted as “I was always sexually attracted to men”.
Oh no, you never ask that question; lest you get trapped—and ensnare someone else—in a real-life version of It’s Pat!. (Thus proving that comedy is occasionally oddly prescient.)
It’s only natural for some individuals. As a male with a same-gender attraction, I have no desire to reproduce with anyone, much less a man. And yet I still have sexual desire.
^ In other words, your sexual desire is un-natural.