Intelligent Design

A Man is a Woman, Winston

Spread the love

Leftists frequently bash ID proponents and climate change hysteria skeptics as science “deniers.”  This is ironic, because these same leftists insist that a man can be a woman by simply wanting to be badly enough.  This would be amusing if they did not often employ the levers of political power to force compliance with their anti-reality delusions, as a school board in Virginia recently did when it fired a teacher for refusing to join in the lie that one of his male students is a female.  See here

We are rapidly arriving at a time when Orwell’s famous “2+2=5 if the party says so” passage is becoming a terrifying reality, except instead instead of “2+2=5 if the party says so,” it is “a man is a woman if the party says so”:

“Do you remember,” he went on, “writing in your diary, ‘Freedom is the freedom to say that a man is a man’?”

“Yes,” said Winston.

O’Brien held up a photograph of a young man.

“What gender is this person, Winston?”

“Male.”

“And if the Party says that he is not male but female — then what gender?”

“Male.”

The word ended in a gasp of pain.  The needle of the dial had shot up to fifty-five. The sweat had sprung out all over Winston’s body. The air tore into his lungs and issued again in deep groans which even by clenching his teeth he could not stop. O’Brien watched him, still holding the photograph.  He drew back the lever.  This time the pain was only slightly eased.

“What gender, Winston?”

“Male.”

The needle went up to sixty.

“What gender, Winston?”

“Male! Male! What else can I say? Male!”

The needle must have risen again, but he did not look at it.  The heavy, stern face and the photograph filled his vision. The image stood before his eyes, blurry, and seeming to vibrate, but unmistakably a male figure.

“What gender, Winston?”

“Male! Stop it, stop it! How can you go on? Male! Male!”

“What gender, Winston?”

“Female! Female! Female!”

“No, Winston, that is no use.  You are lying.  You still think he is male.  What gender, please?”

“Male! Female! Male!  Anything you like.  Only stop it, stop the pain!”

Abruptly he was sitting up with O’Brien’s arm round his shoulders.  He had perhaps lost consciousness for a few seconds.  The bonds that had held his body down were loosened.  He felt very cold, he was shaking uncontrollably, his teeth were chattering, the tears were rolling down his cheeks.  For a moment he clung to O’Brien like a baby, curiously comforted by the heavy arm round his shoulders.  He had the feeling that O’Brien was his protector, that the pain was something that came from outside, from some other source, and that it was O’Brien who would save him from it.

“You are a slow learner, Winston,” said O’Brien gently.

“How can I help it?” he blubbered. “How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? A man is a man.”

“Sometimes, Winston, sometimes he is a woman.  Sometimes he is non-binary or female. Sometimes he is all of them at once.  You must try harder.  It is not easy to become sane.”

5 Replies to “A Man is a Woman, Winston

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    Isa 5:18

    Woe (judgment is coming) to those who drag along wickedness with cords of falsehood,
    And sin as if with cart ropes [towing their own punishment];
    19

    Who say, “Let Him move speedily, let Him expedite His work [His promised vengeance], so that we may see it;
    And let the purpose of the Holy One of Israel approach
    And come to pass, so that we may know it!”
    20

    Woe (judgment is coming) to those who call evil good, and good evil;
    Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
    Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
    21

    Woe (judgment is coming) to those who are wise in their own eyes
    And clever and shrewd in their own sight!
    22

    Woe (judgment is coming) to those who are heroes at drinking wine
    And men of strength in mixing intoxicating drinks,
    23

    Who justify the wicked and acquit the guilty for a bribe,
    And take away the rights of those who are in the right!

    24

    Therefore, as the tongue of fire consumes the stubble [from straw]
    And the dry grass collapses into the flame,
    So their root will become like rot and their blossom blow away like fine dust;
    Because they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts
    And despised and discarded the word of the Holy One of Israel. [AMP]

  2. 2
    EricMH says:

    Doublethink heher with bellyfeel is double plus good!

  3. 3
    ET says:

    A teacher was recently fired for refusing to use the pronouns of choice and instead used the correct pronouns. 🙄

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/teacher-fired-for-refusing-to-use-trans-students-pronouns/ar-BBQLBlq

  4. 4
    Dean_from_Ohio says:

    An object lesson:
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archeologists-sodom-and-gomorrah-literally-destroyed-by-fire-and-brimstone.

    In a related observation, I was listening to my wife hum the little tune “In my own little corner.” The lyrics of that children’s song say, “In my own little corner, in my own little chair, I can be whatever I want to be.” Is there any clearer evidence than this article’s topic that Progressivism infantilizes as well as corrupts everyone and everything it touches?

  5. 5
    john_a_designer says:

    Freedom of thought, conscience and belief and the freedom to express our thoughts and beliefs is fundamental to a free open and democratic society. There is, however, no right to suppress another person’s freedom of expression. Allow that you undermine democracy. That’s the lesson of history.

    In an interview earlier this year, Professor Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto, was challenged on his politically incorrect use of language when it came to the issue of “transgender rights.”

    British interviewer, Cathy Newman, “questioned Peterson on why he refused to go along with the trendy leftist cause du jour: using pronouns chosen by individuals rather than pronouns that describe their biology.”

    “Why should your freedom of speech trump a trans person’s right not to be offended?” Newman asked. Peterson, ever the gentleman, answered the question without guffawing: “Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive. I mean, look at the conversation we’re having right now. You’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth. Why should you have the right to do that? It’s been rather uncomfortable.”

    Newman misdirected: “Well, I’m very glad I’ve put you on the spot.” But Peterson pursued: “Well, you get my point. You’re doing what you should do, which is digging a bit to see what the hell is going on. And that is what you should do. But you’re exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me, and that’s fine. More power to you, as far as I’m concerned.”

    Newman had no answer. Point to Peterson.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/.....ing-people

    The Peterson interview reveals some of the typical rhetorical ploys that the secular progressive left has been using to shut down the free speech rights of people with which they disagree. They redefine language reflected in traditional moral values as being offensive and then invent a new right, “the right not to be offended.” But if you follow that thinking to its logical conclusion, “the right not to be offended,” shuts down everyone else’s rights and stifles dialogue and debate.

    This is what happens when human beings begin to think that they are they are the ultimate source of human rights. That’s what we saw in the Nazi era: If humans are the source of universal human rights then they are the ones who can take them away. That was the thinking that led to genocide.

Leave a Reply