SOGIE is a lie. Sexuality and gender are inseperable

SCrissycedyOGIE stands for ‘Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression’. It is a popular concept amongst many Western LGBT, and they are assiduously trying to export it.

SOGIE, basically, posits — contrary to what you might think — that sexual orientation — whom you want to have sex with — and your gender are separated. Further that your sense of gender identity and your expression of that are also unrelated. So a person who looks like a man, behaves like a man, sexually desires women like a man, can still ‘identify’ as a woman — and everybody else just has to go along with this. But it is  utter nonsense. Sexuality and gender are two sides of the same coin and they CANNOT be separated.

A  standard explanation of ‘SOGIE’ is at the bottom, with my comments on it.

Foucault

SOGIE has its roots principally in the writing of Michel Foucault, a French philosopher who specialised in obscurantism. He was a masochistic homosexual who was obsessed with death and suicide, and who died of AIDS. That seems fitting.

foucault
Michel Foucault

Though he was not the only culprit, Foucault is really the ‘father’ of the Western version of ‘Post-Modernism’. In essence this holds that there is no such thing as objective reality, only the narratives of people; and every narrative is equally valid. It specifically denies the existence of objective reality.

I think it’s important to fully grasp what that means: objective reality and the tool we used to quantify it, science, are, according to this bunk, meaningless. Only people’s reported experiences and feelings matter. ‘Narrative’ is primate and facts must be modified to fit with it.

Post-Modernism, then, is a fancy name for ‘touchy-feeliness.’

In this, no matter what we can be observed to be, we are what we say we are. Unless of course, we break one of the internal rules. So a man can claim to be a woman and that’s all white, but if a white woman claims to be a black one, the sky will fall in.

SOGIE is derived from this self-serving, delusional nonsense.

It has its roots in two movements that have adopted Post-Modernist non-thinking completely. The first of these was Western homosexual men.

Until the late 20th century, homosexuality between men was regarded as a way of having sex. ‘Homosexuals’ were males who desired sex with other men and who were recipients in the act of sex. They described comprehensively by Havelock Ellis and Magnus Hirschfield.

They were characterised by (quote) ‘ their femininity, their smallness of stature, their desire to be penetrated and their lust for men.’

Notably, the men who penetrated them, because they did not conform to the above, were not regarded as homosexual. (If these men fell foul of the law, it was those laws banning a specific sexual act — anal penetration, or buggery.)

After World War II was over, many demobilised servicemen in the USA found themselves in the cities of New York and San Francisco, because these were the two principal demobilisation centres.

The Mattachine Society

They included a significant number of homosexual, by the above measure, men. These men, knowing full well that a life of misery and probably an early death awaited them in small-town Hicksville, stayed. In New York, one of these was a man called Harry Hay, who founded the Mattachine Society. Hay was the ‘Pixie’. He was a an effeminate gay man who cross-dressed.

milo-light
Gay journalist Milo Yiannopoulos, who said on a radio interview that he enjoyed dick ‘just like any other woman’. Thank fuck for non-politically-correct gays

A group within the Mattachine developed that proposed that homosexuals should seek partners amongst themselves. These came to be known as the ‘accommodationists’ Eventually they grew so strong that they threw Hay out and took over completely.

They totally rejected the idea that homosexual men should be feminine, despite the fact that this is what they are. They had to appear to be masculine, because this would help them to be accepted by the broader society. But there was a more fundamental reason for the invention of this, the ‘New Gay Man.’

Homosexual men are attracted to masculine men. Their sexuality is the same as a woman’s. They want to be penetrated, by hunky straight guys.

A hundred ‘bottoms’ looking for a ‘top’

Which leads us to J Michael Bailey’s famous quote about 100 ‘bottoms’ looking for a ‘top’. In societies where homosexuality was and is normalised, homosexual men adopt the roles, manners and often the appearance of women, in order to make themselves attractive to the men they desire. In the intensely homophobic USA, and Anglo-Saxon culture generally, this was not possible. Men interested in having sex with homosexual men risked prosecution, social opprobrium or worse.

The New Gay Man presented a solution: since homosexual men are attracted to masculinity, they should appear to be masculine, not feminine. That way they might attracted other homosexual men as partners.

But homosexual men aren’t in the least bit masculine; they’re feminine. So they invented the faux masculinity that we all recognise as the sign of a gay man.

No more frocks and wigs and woe betide anyone who let slip a hint of femininity, at least inn public. Now homosexual men could form a ‘community’ in which they all chased each other, and whether they were being a man or a woman depended on who was penetrating whom, at that particular moment.

Feminine gay men were ostracised and shunned and transsexuals called, literally, ‘Uncle Toms’. Nice.

The New Gay Man

The New Gay Man created the ‘clone’ gay scene that appeared in the 1970s and is still with us today, morphed into a happily married, overweight, middle aged couple of men with bad suits.

This new order in turn had direct political consequences. One was that men who had sex with homosexuals, had to be homosexual too. This thinking was not based in the work of Ellis and Hirschfield, but in the pseudo-scientific ravings of Sigmund Freud, a man with possibly the unique distinction of being wrong about everything.

Freud had disregarded the observational evidence of the behaviours an appearance of homosexual men and decided that instead, homosexuality was only an attraction to men, by men. Since homosexuals were themselves men, then those attracted to them must also be homosexual.

It became the fashion in the 1970s and 80s, amongst homosexual activists, to ‘out’ men who had sex with homosexual men, as ‘gays’.

Peter Tatchell

In the UK the chief amongst these was Peter Tatchell, a homosexual who brought with him all the bitterness, self-hatred and entitlement typical of Australians, and overlaid it with even more, resulting from the fact that he appeared to suffer gender dysphoria. This was because he was obliged not to dress up in pretty frocks for the sake of the cause.

(The absurdity of the accommodationist position is that today, people who work to counter the effects of AIDS and HIV, have had to invent a whole new category of men — MSMs or ‘men who have sex with men’. Invariably, these men penetrate. One wonders what the waspish, now aging, queen Tatchell thinks about that.)

Nevertheless, this gave rise to the first leg of the infamous SOGIE — masculine men like to be fucked like women. So, there must not be a link between such a man’s ‘gender expression’ — which is a kind of man — and his sexual orientation, which is to be arse-rogered senseless.

Well, it’s complete BS but nobody was paying attention. All gays are feminine. Every single one. And they all suffer from gender dysphoria. Their notion of ‘masculinity’ is risible, but hey.

This leads us to the next whopper: the above means that wanting to be fucked does not make you a woman.

Well, yes it does. But never mind, here we have the first premise of the SOGIE nonsense.

Homosexual men are feminine innately

This is to disguise that fact that homosexual men are feminine. In fact, Western homosexuals are punished for being feminine. They are ostracised. Dr J M Bailey calls this ‘femiphobia’ and Dr Alice Dreger calls it ‘sissyphobia’. But there is another word, and its better: ‘homophobia’. The fact is that what Western homosexuals hate most is their own innate femininity. They are naturally feminine and have been conditioned to reject this in favour of New Gay Man faux masculinity. They were never attracted to femininity — that is the point.

That is why they struggle against it. That is why they invented ‘SOGIE’ and countless other nonsenses — to divert attention from the fact that homosexuals are actually women.

Their faux masculinity is a joke, but it’s one that homosexuals don’t get. The sad thing is that a profoundly hateful and homophobic Western culture causes them to hate their true natures.

The second premise of SOGIE comes about because of transsexuals. Historically these were always considered to be closely related to feminine gay men, just a little further along the scale. And this is true of a significant number. However, right from the time of Magnus Hirschfeld, the pioneer in this field, another group had been observed. These didn’t look like women and they did not act in an effeminate way. More particularly, a great many were not attracted to men but to women.

Ray Blanchard

What on Earth was going on? Well, thanks to the work of Dr Ray Blanchard, we now know that these people are not primarily homosexual, that is, they are not attracted to masculiniity . Instead they have a condition called ‘autogynephilia’, which Blanchard described as ‘a man’s propensity to be aroused at the thought of himself as a woman’. You might call it ‘an overwhelming desire, on the part of a born male, to be a woman’. But we’ll go with Blanchard for now.

Around 60% of these people, in the West, are gynephilic. That is to say that they are attracted to and desire to have sex with women. In this population, a further 20% are pseudo-bisexual, that is, they pursue sex with men in order to maximise thei rfantasy of being women by being penetrated like a woman. (This is much more common in southeast Asia where nearly all AGP transwomen exhibit it. The most likely explanation is the much reduced social intolerance of homosexuality.) A final 20%, in the West do not have sex with other people.

Of course, the heteronormative desire of that 60% calls into question whether they are women at all. (Something well understood by those Asian AGPs.)

They aren’t lesbians, because you need to be a woman to be a lesbian. What makes their sexual attraction to women any different from any other man’s? The answer, of course, is ‘nothing’. So their sexual orientation — their desire to have sex with women — makes them men, who happen to wear frocks.

SOGIE to the rescue!

It says that no matter what observation tells us, only narrative counts. If a person claims to be a woman, then that person can be a woman, no matter their orientation, or how they appear to others, because the most important precept of SOGIE is that its parameters, its proponents claim, ARE NOT dependent on each other. They act independently.

Obviously, since many of these individuals claim ‘to be a woman’ yet are attracted to women, then there must, in turn, not be any link between gender and orientation.

Of course, this circular reasoning is utter bunk; it’s playground philosophising. Reality is what counts, not ‘narratives’.

‘SOGIE’ is a self-serving piece of blatant Political Correctness that is untrue in its premises and misleading in its conclusions. Sexuality and gender are not only linked, they are innately so. Gay men and HSTS transwomen are feminine because they have a woman’s sexual desire for men.

SOGIE-flier-4.7The following is from a pamphlet distributed by UConn’s ‘rainbow centre’. Original (with spelling corrections) in italics, my comments regular. http://rainbowcenter.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/786/2016/04/SOGIE-flier-4.7.16.pdf

SOGIE Basics 101

Sexuality: a range of concepts, ideologies, identities, behaviours, and expressions related to one’s values, actions and attitudes regarding life, love, and relationships. Sexuality is not only about sex, but is multifaceted and unique to the individual.

(In other words, it is not defined. So we don’t know what it is. Do they?)

Orientation: Sexual/Romantic Determination of attraction for people/persons of the same gender/sex, another gender/sex, or multiple genders/sexes (Multiple? There are only two. And there is no reason, other than to make up an acronym of made-up terms, why this should be separated from ‘Sexuality’. They’re the same thing.)

Attraction: The desire for or lack of desire (!) for intimate, emotional, romantic, and/or sexual relationships with a person(s). Ex. Pansexual, Asexual, Lesbian, Gay, Aromantic, Bisexual, Panromantic, Queer, Heterosexual, Polyamourous, Non-Labeling, Polysexual, Two-spirit ... (Incredibly, ‘homosexual’ and ‘asexual’, which are real, don’t make it onto the list of made-up orientations. There are actually only four: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual and asexual.)

Gender: A societal construct of categories that divide bodies into a binary system of women and men, based on the gender binary assigned at birth. (Factually incorrect: part of gender is constructed but much of it is innate. The women/men binary is of the latter. And one’s sex is identified, not ‘assigned’ at birth.)

More recently, categories such as transgender, androgynous, and genderqueer have been embraced and advanced. (These are not separate genders. There are only two, masculine and feminine.)

Identity (internal sense of self): A person’s internal sense of gender; their self-perception of gender. Ex. Gender Non-Conforming, Agender, Man, Woman, Cisgender, Two-spirit, Bigender, Gender Fluid, Transgender…

(Again, there are only two genders, so only two that could inform this sense, masculine and feminine. The rest are either made up or improperly used here.)

Expression (outward reflection): The presentation of one’s gender, often reflected in behaviour, body features, clothing, hairstyle, voice and other external characteristics. Ex. Feminine, Androgynous, Masculine, Gender Non-Conforming,…

(This is called ‘fashion’. The two genders, masculine and feminine, are marked by signals that indicate to the outside world who our desired mate is.)

Expectations/Roles: The set of ever-changing culturally and historically specific meanings that shape the social expectations for bodies, behaviours, emotions, and roles, based upon gender classifications. (This is just a part of gender; people expect men and women to look differently.

Sex assigned at birth (medical)The medical term assigned at birth which involves a certain combination of chromosomes, external sex organs, gonads, secondary sex characteristics and hormonal balances. Assignments may include the following broad terms: Intersex, Female, Male. (Lies. Sex is identified at birth, not ‘assigned’. The doctor did not give you your sex; you were born with it.)

And here is the biggest whopper of the lot:

Note: Identities exist on a variety of spectrums. A persons identity as related to one spectrum holds no bearing on how they identify on other spectrums.

(In fact, ALL of the above are inextricably linked and informed by sexuality. )

There is not a single claim in SOGIE that stands up to scrutiny. Not one. It is a canard from beginning to end.

SOGIE is a lie. Sexuality and gender are inseperable was originally published on Rod Fleming’s World

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s