How to Become Gay

I’ve been feeling a bit over-represented recently. White, straight, male. Could I be any less interesting and special at all? I need to find a way to increase my quota of BURPs (Brave Under-Representation Points)¹.

I decided to see what I could do about it. The obvious first step is to become gay. I know, I know, being merely gay is so passé these days, but it is at least a start on my exciting diversity journey to collect BURPs. But how does one go about doing that? How can I become gay?

If I could achieve that, then I could move to one of those places where they throw homosexuals off 100m tall buildings and for a short time (approximately four and a half seconds) I could feel that euphoric rush as my BURPs stack up.

And then it hit me. WibbleWoo, the great Goddle of Gender has, in Ziz-Zer infinite wisdom, all the answers.

It’s a powerful, deep, and sacred, magic.

I get my girlfriend to identify as a man.

According to the Holy Writ of Wibble, the Self-Hagiography and Inclusive Testament (SHIT), one merely has to identify to become.

If I can convince my girlfriend to become a man, then the deep magic of SHIT would kick in and I would instantly transform into being a gay man. Of course, it would probably mean I would have to buy a new power tool for birthdays instead of flowers and chocolate, but there is a price to pay for everything.

What I have indulged in here is only moderately sarcastic. It’s a form of reasoning known as reductio ad absurdum. It’s a really fun method of proof in maths.

Someone comes along and presents a hypothesis, or some new theorem. The idea here is to say “Ah, if your theorem is true then it would mean X is also true. But X is fucking crazy. Therefore, your theorem cannot be true”

A very simple, but important, example is the notion of infinity. Let’s suppose my good friend Dr. Plonker drops by my office one day

Dr P : Rudy, my dear fellow, I think there exists a biggest number
RR : what is it?
Dr P : I don’t know, but I know there is one
RR : but what if I take this ‘biggest number’ and add 1 to it?
Dr P : stop confusing the issue with your white supremacist thinking

What has been disproven here is the hypothesis that there is such a thing as a ‘biggest’ number. We can also call this a proof by contradiction, which is, more or less, the same thing. You take some initial hypothesis to be (provisionally) true and then demonstrate that it leads to some contradiction (an absurdity). This means we can reject the initial hypothesis.

It is, clearly, a form of reasoning not practiced by gender idealogues.

Indeed, one often wonders whether the GIMPs (Gender Ideology Madness Promoters) employ ANY form of reasoning at all.

This tweet, and the fabulous reply, are a very good example.

The first tweet is really attacking the meaning of meaning. The second tweet is a perfect reply to the initial nonsense.

There are many words that can mean different things.

Normie : your car keys are on the left
GenderWoo : (reaches towards the right)
Normie : No! Your other left
GenderWoo : stop forcing your pedantry on me - fascist

The word ‘left’ here has quite a few meanings, of course, but in context it’s unambiguous.

There are some words that are difficult to precisely define. The most famous, possibly apocryphal, example is perhaps when, during legal proceedings, someone was asked to define pornography. The answer was along the lines of “I can’t, but I know it when I see it”.

The word ‘woman’, however, is not such a word. There really isn’t any ‘ambiguity’ about it at all. You cannot become a woman merely by identifying as one. If this were true, then the word ‘woman’ would not actually possess a meaning. It would be a meaningless word.

All of this bloody idiotic genderwoo has its roots in Queer Theory which has the explicit agenda of “queering” society. The idea is that we need to break out of restrictive ‘normative’ ways of thinking, to ‘liberate’ ourselves from modes of thought that constrain us. Being outside of the ‘norm’ is to be ‘queer’.

But it’s a little bit more than just “thinking outside the box” (which is, in general, a good thing). You cannot properly ‘reason’ about words that, essentially, have no meaning. The aim of Queer Theory is not just liberation from restrictive societal attitudes (not necessarily a bad thing) but to ‘liberate’ us from the very shackles of meaning and reason, particularly when it comes to issues surrounding sex, sexuality and gender.

We can see this in the example of Jacob Breslow, discussed in my last article. His agenda aligns with the queering agenda of Queer Theory where his aim is to ‘deconstruct childhood’, to blur the boundaries between child and adult, to argue that the distinction between ‘child’ and ‘adult’ is not meaningful, particularly when it comes to sex and sexuality.

This is just one example of the “queering” of society promoted by this ideology.

This kind of dangerous shit is what you get when you treat SHIT as some kind of holy writ.

---

1. Just in case I need to say it, and I shouldn’t, I’m not attacking any individual lifestyle or group here. I’m attacking an ideology that seeks to promote a kind of hierarchy of marginalization as a way of claiming special status. Gay people, for example, never wanted special status, they merely wanted equal status; to be not thought of as some kind of aberration that needed suppressing or kept in the closet, so to speak.