The Slippery Slope of Legitimizing Sexual Deviance

Given recent developments, those familiar with the machinations of the political left and the diabolical nature of the current administration have come to realize that legitimizing the range of sexually deviant behaviors will ultimately become constitutional arguments. Sadly, those arguments will likely be made employing convoluted logic and subverted, intellectually dishonest interpretations of constitutional law.

This past April, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) conducted its annual Day of Silence, wherein participating public high school and middle school students remained silent throughout an entire school day to show solidarity with LGBT students. GLSEN was founded in 1990 by homosexual activist, former Obama administration “Safe Schools Czar” and likely pedophile Kevin Jennings.

Trending: Democratic Rep Makes OBSCENE Trump Joke to Open Florida Rally

This “student-led” (wink-wink, nudge-nudge, say-no-more) effort was calculated to “raise awareness about the silencing effect of anti-LGBT bullying, harassment and discrimination.”

In May, activists and a communist homosexual congressman (Jared Polis, D-CO) attempted to politically exploit the case of a high school valedictorian who took offense when his private high school refused to allow him to “come out” as gay during his commencement speech.

The refusal on the part of the school to let him do this was cited as “homophobic” and emblematic of widely-held “anti-gay” sentiments that threaten LGBT teens in schools and perpetuate the kind of attitudes that foster a climate in which anti-LGBT bullying, harassment and discrimination thrive.

Radical leftists – and even well-meaning, though horribly misguided liberals – have gotten on board with this idea that there are innumerable budding homosexual kids in our schools who need to be ferreted out, identified, nurtured in their homosexuality, and of course, protected from the evil, straight (and largely Christian) majority who want to damage them emotionally or even physically.

As we’ve seen in the general population, they’ve also promoted the idea amongst teenagers that one’s gender can be whichever or whatever they’d like it to be this week.

To elucidate, we will examine one of many sad cases in the saga of our societal dysfunction and the toll that promoting sexual deviance amidst our youth is taking upon them.

Recently, I was reading the story of this poor kid in Southern California who opted for suicide in April after being bullied in school over their gender representation. It is obviously tragic when a child takes their own life, whatever the circumstances; I have to say this, only because if I don’t, I will be charged with being a monumental right wing slimeball, instead of a garden variety right wing slimeball.

At first blush, the account was somewhat confusing, because in the vast majority of press reports on the suicide, 16-year-old Taylor Alesana was referenced as “a transgender girl.” Alesana’s suicide is proving to be the crest of a wave of suicides of LGBT youth this year – at least, that’s what they’re saying.

As we know, someone named “Taylor” could be a male or a female. These days however, when one is referenced as “she,” and “her,” and “a transgender girl,” we don’t know if this was a biologically female individual who identified as a male, or a biologically male individual who identified as female.

Had this person been diagnosed with genetic anomalies that would give rise to gender identity issues? Had they undergone gender reassignment surgery, like those who were previously referred to as “transsexual?” This seems unlikely, since Alesana was just sixteen. Was this someone who simply took on the outward appearance of the opposite sex, like those previously referred to as “transvestites?”

I’ll save the LGBT lobby’s intentionally vague classifications of gender for another discussion, but what has become apparent in this context is that it no longer matters what someone is, or appears to be biologically; they are allowed to take on the appearance of whatever gender they like, and society is obliged to summarily and universally accept it.

So, suppose you have a boy from sunny Southern California who winds up identifying as female. We don’t know whether it’s nature (biological) or nurture (psychological-emotional), but we do know that he lives in a country that had 40 more years cascading over the waterfall of moral ambivalence by the time he was born than someone in my age group, for example.

He ultimately finds himself in one of the most bizarre and challenging environments on Earth: High school.

Since he lives in the land of fruits and nuts, of course there is far more encouragement and popular acceptance of his gender representation on the part of the intellectually-enlightened adults around him than in other regions of the United States. Based on what the press, media, and authority figures tell kids of his age, they reason that they can show up to school looking as androgynous or as provocative as they please, and they have a right to expect that they will be unconditionally accepted.

Their peers are another story. They, like most individuals, are primally revolted by androgyny. This means that they’re hard-wired to respond in a biologically-proscribed manner to certain phenomena, like recoiling from a bright flash or loud noise, recognizing the signs of aggression in another’s body language, or what facial expressions mean.

I don’t condone bullying, even though the left’s misrepresentation of this behavior inspires victimhood and is on track to produce a vast crop of timid, cringing youth. The point is that it isn’t because our hypothetical kid’s straight peers were born evil, or their parents indoctrinated them into homophobia that they find it difficult to accept him. It is because highly-developed forms of life react with alarm toward bizarre renditions of their species, such as when they observe one of their own seriously injured, exhibiting the symptoms of serious illness, or otherwise behaving discernibly outside the norm – and representing oneself as a member of the opposite sex definitely qualifies.

Not to speak ill of the dead or mock an individual who was clearly tortured from without and within, but Taylor Alesana was by no means an unassuming, shrinking violet, doing their level best to escape the notice of potential bullies. Alesana was quite flamboyant, and demonstrably enthusiastic about showcasing “the LGBT lifestyle.” According to The Gender Society’s website, “Alesana had found popularity on YouTube where she primarily gave beauty advice and makeup tips.”

Just suppose that instead of identifying as female, a 16 year-old male claimed to self-identify as a predatory jungle cat, and ran around the high school spraying the walls with his urine? Or say another teen – claiming some phobia, skin condition, or just the “right of free expression” – determined to go about naked?

Think these are “over the top” extrapolations?

Maybe not so much. Concerns for public health and modesty often go out the window in the name of political correctness. We saw this in the 1980s at the start of the AIDS crisis when the homosexual lobby balked at municipalities’ call to close gay bath houses. We’ve witnessed it in the refusal of the press and government to acknowledge the public health threats posed by the plethora of infectious diseases from which homosexual men routinely suffer as a direct result of their sexual practices.

How much more disturbing are the jungle cat and naked high schooler examples than the idea of a straight woman or young girl having to share a public bathroom – by law – with a transvestite?

Consider that there are for example, people for whom urination and coprophagia (the consumption of feces) are part of their routine sexual habits. Will they too soon be vying for some sort of protected status at the urging of the left?

Will our grandchildren someday be forced to sit stoically in their high school cafeteria as the student across from them defiantly chows down on something they just produced in the lavatory – and do so without complaint, for fear of being called scatophobic?

Just food for thought…

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.