Search
  • 738

658. Darkening of the light (XIII)



The body that governs international swimming has reacted to the fact that strapping six-footers with names like “Daisy” and “Mildred” have time and again cruised to victory over female swimmers—usually left to huddle together for sisterly protection on the podium as the hulk clutches his golden 1st place cup in his shovel-like hands. In a related move, the British government has announced legislation to guarantee gender-segregated bathrooms in all new buildings. “At last, some common sense,” says the decent suburban middle-class conservative, as he pops his sandalled feet up on the pouf and rustles his copy ofThe Times. “It’s about time, enough is enough when it comes to this gender madness,” he says, as he sips his tea and dunks his digestive biscuits (only two, every Saturday, as a treat—you cannot be too extravagant). He contemplates his trip to the garden centre with “the wife”, perhaps not without trepidation.


Oh woe! Little does he suspect that this is a disastrous development. The ruling on the trans swimmers only excludes men who have transitioned after puberty has started. Naturally, this is justified on rational grounds: if you transitioned before puberty then there is no way you can benefit from the hormonal changes that occur in men in puberty. Yet this is classic manipulation of procedural outcomes, and I think it is deliberate: the change in the rules will be used to argue for younger transitions.


“We must start transitioning at ten, perhaps even seven, if the child is to access sports, such as swimming,” an expert will say on CNN. “To start the transition at seven is what the science says is correct and is also necessary if a trans person is to fully participate in life—if only there were fewer discriminatory rules this wouldn’t be so urgent.” So there you go, the ruling has set the scene for the campaign for pre-pubescent transitions as “rational” and “urgent” if a trans person is to lead a so-called normal life.


The situation is the same with the legislated bathroom segregation. This is a classic example where it is a mistake to legislate common sense. As with Section 28, the legislation will become a target for a campaign to repeal it because it is “inhumane” and “wildly irrational”; as a static target, a bit like the US Constitution, the legislation will be repealed or inverted—so that we will end up with the opposite situation de facto mandated. Besides, if you walk around the big corporate establishments you will find all the bathrooms are already uni-tarded, sorry, uni-sex—not from “corporate greed” but because the bureaucracy has subtlety worked them over.


The main point to uni-sex bathrooms is to inconvenience privileged people—as with all leftist measures, it is motivated by pure resentment. Men are quicker in the bathroom, whereas women have to queue—this is unfair. Therefore, smush them together; now everyone has to queue for ages—equality, everyone suffers at least twice as much as before but at least we all suffer together. The people who are supposedly “helped”, women in this case, are instead now subjected to the pig-like filth usual in the men’s room—a bathroom they now share with “Doris”, whose botched Thai sex-change means he trails half his penis about with him, milkily opaque like an empty sausage skin, while a distinctly faecal smell emanates from his pseudo-vaginal orifice. (If you contribute to his GoFundMe he can have it finished off in Florida, properly—and I urge you to do so, he has mental health issues).


The same goes for legislation to ban the hijab; flick up an Egyptian film from the 1940s and you will find all the actors are dressed like Hollywood Westerners. Nobody mandated it to be so, it was a voluntary identification with the self-confident civilisational bloc. We have become autumnal since then, hence in Western countries we ban the hijab—marking it as a high-status symbol that “we” are here. Real law is oral.


122 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All