You. Yes, you. You're a bigot.Are you a straight man who only wants to have sex with women? Are you a gay man who only wants to have sex with men? Are you a bisexual man who wants to have sex with people of both sexes but only if they are good-looking? Are you asexual?
You're a bigot.
According to Samantha Allen of The Daily Beast, it is deeply "disappointing but unsurprising" that under 20 percent of Americans in a recent survey said they would be open to having sex with a transgender person. That's because, she says, "Cultural acceptance has tended to lag behind formal recognition."
It turns out that according to the left, all sexual behavior is malleable and based largely on social structures that have been implemented by the patriarchy. Men and women don't exist but for their self-perception -- we know that a man can be a woman and a woman can be a man, regardless of biology. That's why Caitlyn Jenner isn't just a man with a mental disorder and some plastic surgery and hormone injections; Caitlyn Jenner is as much of a woman as Michelle Obama. The left reasons that if a man can be a woman, then a man who only wants to have sex with biological women must be a bigot -- his desires have been wrongly defined by a society that restricted the definition of womanhood to, you know, women. If only men had been exposed to the deeper truth of gender earlier. If only they'd known that some women have male genitalia. Then, perhaps they'd be willing to have sex with biological men who are actually women.
The same holds true with regard to homosexuals, of course. If a woman is a lesbian, it's discriminatory of her to not want to have sex with a man who identifies as a woman. Her desires have also been shaped by her environment. And her environment has drawn a stark but wrong -- oh, ever so wrong! -- line between biological men and biological women.
If all of this sounds insane, that's because it is.
For years, I perceived the Left as basically consisting of two tiers: the tofu-and-sprouts / peace-fellowship / coffee-hour-at-the-Unitarian-church / human-rights-council types who earnestly believed in the collective perfectability of humankind on the one hand, and the cynical, power-mad overlords exploiting the first group's innocence on the other. My model was flexible enough to allow for cases in which someone from the first group morphed into someone from the second. In fact, cases of this phenomenon abound. It could be argued that Barack Obama, the Most Equal Comrade, is an example.
But we really are into some uncharted territory now. We have people assuming an air of great self-righteousness in their proclamation that we all ought to become fungible beings with no reason to find each other attractive in any natural sense, yet still craving the stimulation that we'd experienced in each other's company back when we were still boys and girls - and had some dignity and common sense. Just automatons existing for gratification and to perform whatever technocratic task the state deems us fit for.
In other words, guys like Mao and Castro at least wanted to get laid - and by good-looking women. Now, we are forbidden to have any such socially unjust impulses - and so are those who would deign to be our dictators.
I like to think that this whole enterprise is going to collapse of its own inherent unnaturalness. But I'm not certain of that. With the major cultural institutions - schools, the entertainment industry, corporate human-resource departments, journalism, even the left side of the religion spectrum - under the control of those who think this way, the task of permanently fending off the Day of the New Creature is going to be unprecedentedly daunting.
Prayer, keen wits, and fostering of community with those who remember a world in which dignity, common sense and natural sexuality were assumed to characterize daily life are our primary tools.
But that things have gotten this far ought to keep us sober about the magnitude of the effort.