09 July 2025

Video of the day -- uncomfortable realities


This video, and what I have to say about it, will make some regular readers unhappy.  (At 33 minutes it's also longer than I would have preferred, but still worth watching.  6:40 to 8:10 is a skippable ad.)  Be warned that some of it is disturbing.  The part about "drag kids" will make your skin crawl -- if it doesn't, there's something wrong with you.

The gay rights movement was one of the most remarkable successes in the history of US social progress.  As recently as 2003 being gay was criminalized in a quarter of the states; today same-sex marriage is legal all over the US and has majority support, even in the South.  It's also legal in most of western Europe and much of Latin America.  Yet now all that progress is in danger of being lost, and public acceptance is already starting to slip.

The gay rights movement, as such, doesn't really exist any more, having now been fully subsumed into the LGBTQXYZWTF+ Frankensteinian agglomeration which claims to be its continuation, or rather, tries to retcon the original gay movement into being merely the larval form of itself.  In fact it's been a transformation into something unrecognizably different.  A few writers, many of them lesbians, have been speaking out bluntly about this; I've occasionally included their articles in my link round-ups.  What was originally a straightforwardly-defined and easily-understood demographic (gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals) has been swamped, not only by the relatively small number of creeps and nutcases who claim or even actually believe that humans can have a "gender" opposite to their actual sex, but by ever-growing numbers of heterosexuals with various fetishes, kinks, and mental illnesses who find that they can now re-define these as "identities" and muscle in to claim a spot under the "queer" umbrella.  The few actual gay people who publicly object to this are accused of "dividing the community", though this is likely the most bizarre usage of the word "community" in the history of the English language.  After years of such colonization, the results look like this.  It's no wonder public support and sympathy are eroding.

And no, that erosion is not a result of Trump being in office.  It began well before he won the election last year, and I suspect the public would be turning against all this even faster if the Democrats were in office now and the "movement" (I know that's not the right word for what it is now, but I'm not sure there even is a right word) was still being pushed on everyone by government power.  The original gay rights movement succeeded because decent people saw that justice required an end to discrimination and persecution against people with a harmless sexual orientation toward their own sex.  Nobody ever signed up for men in women's sports and prisons, hormonal and surgical mutilation of minors, being bullied into referring to men as "she", hardcore porn in schools, guys in gross leather outfits waggling their dicks around in public at Pride parades (something which would get them arrested in any other context), or guys who look like stegosaurus molesters from outer space holding "story hours" with little children and otherwise imposing their freakish presence on them as something that should be "normalized".  Mainstream society is never going to accept this.  As is shown by links I've posted at various times, public opposition to trans ideology and the whole "movement" is becoming stronger and more widespread as people learn more about what it actually is.

And no, the vast majority of people neither know nor care about the endless proliferation of boring sexual "identities" and their ugly flags.  It's all just one big mob of Martians to them.  When they're told that being gay means you're part of the same "community" as delusional and terrifying-looking freaks, they believe it.

The way this is going, it's most likely to end in a massive backlash of sexual conservatism which will wipe out all of the progress the gay movement has made over the last few decades -- regardless of which party wins the next few elections (in fact, it will be an increasingly crippling electoral liability for the Democrats, unless they can manage to convincingly repudiate their support for the "movement").  If you don't want that to happen -- and I certainly don't -- the "community" is going to have to put its own house in order.

They did it once before.  In the early days of gay liberation, pedophiles (see groups like NAMBLA) tried to glom onto it and link their own perversion with it, hoping to win acceptance alongside gays.  Obviously any such association would have doomed gay liberation to failure, and gay leaders at the time rightly rejected it.  I'm not saying trans ideology and public kink are the same thing as pedophilia -- obviously they're different -- but they represent a politically analogous problem today, and need to be similarly repudiated.

Yes, yes, pointing all this out is likely to lead to some anger and hurt feelings.  But -- it's the truth, and ignoring the truth is dangerous.  Watch the video.  All that shit probably played a non-trivial role in getting Trump elected last year, and that's only the tip of the iceberg of the kind of damage it's going to do as the public becomes more and more aware of what's going on.  Not being gay, I personally don't have as much to lose -- I don't want to live in the kind of society that a real backlash and endless Republican victories would produce, but I'm not among those who would be directly targeted.  Nevertheless, I do know the difference between being supportive and enabling self-delusion.  There's still time to change course, but not much.  That iceberg is getting close.

6 Comments:

Blogger Rade said...

Interesting, I was just having this very discussion with an older, lesbian friend of mine the other day! You are not off base.

10 July, 2025 06:19  
Blogger SickoRicko said...

I agree: You're not off base.

10 July, 2025 11:34  
Blogger Infidel753 said...

I'm glad these kinds of conversations are happening. I think a lot of people realize these things, but feel intimidated into not speaking out publicly.

12 July, 2025 03:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've almost come to the unfortunate conclusion that gay rights are mostly wrong. What I once thought was a knockout argument in favor of same-sex marriage I now realize is actually quite a poor argument for anything that doesn't specifically concern biologically intersex people: that some people are not clearly male or female. The slippery-slope-toward-polygamy argument now looks stronger. We may not be close to recognizing throuple marriages, but why shouldn't we, based on the logic behind same-sex marriage? I never agreed with compelling bakers or florists or photographers to cater to same-sex weddings, and that was/is similar to the kind of bullying we're seeing now with trans ideology. You can even make a reasonable case for outlawing certain homosexual acts, considering how HIV was/is spread. I realize that's not the only way it's transmitted, but clearly that is how it got spread in the first place (and even if it's under control now, there's a chance that could happen again with some new disease). It's quite surprising that the gay rights movement gained traction after that. To clarify, I don't really think such acts should be outlawed, but on the other hand the Supreme Court may have overstepped by forbidding states from doing so (incidentally, reversing a Supreme Court decision from just 17 years prior). In some ways, I'm hoping that someone can show me where I'm wrong here.

14 July, 2025 08:43  
Blogger Infidel753 said...

Anon: You're making several distinct points here. On same-sex marriage, I have never heard anyone support it based on a claim that "some people are not clearly male or female" (which is not true, anyway). The argument always had to do with discrimination. If Joe can legally marry Jill, but Jane cannot legally marry Jill, solely because Joe is a man and Jane is a woman, that's sex discrimination. Notice that this does not at all raise the issue of polygamy.

The slippery-slope argument about gay marriage leading to polygamy is not convincing because dozens of countries have now had legal same-sex marriage for up to a couple of decades, and none of those countries has gone on to legalize polygamy. There are a few societies today which do have legal polygamy, and in the past there were many, but none of those societies had previously legalized same-sex marriage, so none of them got to polygamy via the claimed "slippery slope" route.

The issue with providing services for same-sex weddings is, again, discrimination. If you provide a service for some people but refuse to provide it for others, based solely on some category they fall into, then that's discriminatory. For example, if a lunch counter will sell a sandwich to a white person but refuses to sell an identical sandwich to a black person, purely because the second person is black, that is discriminatory, and we seem to have reached a social consensus that this should be illegal. Providing catering or photography services to an opposite-sex couple but not to a same-sex couple, purely because the latter are gay, presents exactly the same issue.

There are practical reasons, mostly to do with safety, why women have separate public bathrooms, changing rooms, and suchlike. So long as equivalent facilities are available for men, no one found this to be a problem until very recently. The same applies to having separate women's prisons, sports teams, and so forth. There really are fundamental biological differences between men and women, which need to be taken into account in such situations, whereas there are only trivial biological differences between (for example) different races or even between (as far as we can tell) gay men and straight men.

14 July, 2025 09:08  
Blogger Infidel753 said...

You can even make a reasonable case for outlawing certain homosexual acts, considering how HIV was/is spread

You're conflating the nature of the acts with the orientation of the people committing them. It's indisputable that buggery creates a wide range of health hazards and even risks of injury which do not exist, or at least not to anything like the same extent, with penile-vaginal or oral sex -- one of those health hazards being a far higher risk of HIV transmission. However, buggery is not the only common gay sex act (and by definition it cannot occur between lesbians). Also, buggery committed by heterosexual men upon women is now much commoner that it was until a couple of decades ago, mostly due to the role of pornography in popularizing it, and so we are now increasingly seeing women suffering from the same kinds of injuries and medical problems that were almost unique to gay men in the pre-AIDS era.

So at best you are making a case for outlawing buggery (for everyone), not for outlawing "homosexual acts" as such. I would not support outlawing buggery, given the near-impossibility of enforcing such a law without an impossibly-invasive totalitarian state. The practice of buggery is best combated by public education campaigns, as some countries are now doing to address other dangerous "sexual" acts popularized by porn, such as semi-strangulation, and as most developed countries have long done with smoking.

If it would be impractical and a dangerous invasion of privacy for the federal government to outlaw buggery (or smoking or whatever), then this would equally apply to the states doing so. In practice, states which had such laws never made any pretense of enforcing them broadly, but just used them as a pretext for sporadic harassment of homosexual men. So such laws brought no real public health benefit, but merely enabled discrimination. The argument that such state laws were an unacceptable violation of privacy seems sound.

I appreciate your leaving a thoughtful comment expressing disagreement without hostility, and I hope I succeeded in similarly making a case for my own position.

14 July, 2025 09:25  

Post a Comment

Please be on-topic and read the comments policy. Spam, trolls, and fight-pickers will be deleted. If you don't have a Blogspot account and aren't sure how to comment, please see here. Fair warning: anything supporting transgender ideology, or negative toward Brexit, or in favor of a military draft or compulsory national service, will be deleted. I am not obligated to provide a platform for views I find morally abhorrent.

No comments advocating violence against any specific identifiable individual, even jokingly.

Please be considerate -- no political or politics-tinged comments on non-political posts, and no performative cynicism (or cynicism in general).

<< Home