The New Doublethink: Natural Born Social Construct?

     Can 2 + 2 = 3, at the same time 2 + 2 = 5?  According the Orwellian Doublethink, it can and must.  This doublethink is the fundamental argument of transgenderism.

     On one hand, we are told that transgendered individuals, i.e. those who think they are something other than what they are biologically, are “born that way” and are thus protected by the same laws, and for the same reason, that persons are protected based on their race, biological sex, and purportedly their sexual preferences.  Thus, 2 + 2 = 3.

     On the other hand, we are told that “gender” is a “social construct” that has nothing to do with one’s biological sex.  Thus, “cis-gendered” individuals, i.e. those who think they are what they actually are, are declared to be suffering from cis-normative oppression, and are encouraged to abolish that notion of gender… particularly if they are little boys who act like little boys.  Thus, 2 + 2 =5.

     Anyone who questions this Doublethink is condemned as a monster in the most negative manichean terms possible.

     Question for the Leftists who support sex-reassignment surgery: If they are “born that way” (which is the basis for their “protected class” status), then why should that be changed?  Further, why should someone else be forced to pay for that?

     If the “mind” and “body” don’t match, why is it okay to change the body, rather than the mind? After all, if these individuals are “born” thinking they are a different gender than their body, doesn’t mean that they are “born” with their body just like a person is “born” with their race?  Isn’t failing to come to terms with the fact that they are “born that way” their problem and not the problem of another?

     Aren’t we told that physical form trumps what one thinks?  After all, “race,” or “sexual orientation” are considered protected classed because they are declared “immutable” while you can be discriminated in the private sector for what you believe or say, or even forced to violate your own beliefs and be compelled to speech you don’t believe in.  Yet in the case of sex-reassignment surgery, we see what one thinks trumping what one biologically is.

     If what one thinks they are and what they really are differs, why is changing what one looks like acceptable but changing what one thinks isn’t?  Isn’t what one believes or says supposedly a “choice”?  Isn’t “gender” supposed to be a “social construct” and in effect a choice?  If so, then why does someone who has a “gender identity” divergent from their biological sex, nonetheless get treated as if it is an immutable characteristic like race of biological sex?

     But then, engaging in non-coital sexual acts is protected because that it is declared by homosexual activists to be “who they are,” despite the fact that sexual relations and how one dresses is a choice.  After all, if it wasn’t, then rape wouldn’t be a crime, since the perpetuator isn’t culpable for their own sexuality!

     Don’t question it… Just accept the party line.  It’s doubleplusgood!

Tweet