Queers, language and the nature of reality

Suppose I started telling you a story involving Hobbits and wizards, and something about a ring. Immediately you would recognize that I am describing “Middle Earth” as Tolkien called it.

But you would never confuse Middle Earth for our world.

We recognize that Middle Earth is distinct from our world because we recognize that our world does not contain Hobbits, for instance. As soon as you describe a Hobbit you are describing a world other than our own.

But suppose my story involved a Hobbit boarding an airplane. Confusion might set in because Middle Earth does not have such technology. I would then be describing a reality other than our world and other than Middle Earth. Because what we include, and what we omit, are both factors in determining which world we are talking about. Middle Earth is defined, in part, by a lack of airplanes.

And the more I have reflected upon it recently, the more I have come to realize that Queer activists are describing some reality other than our world. I’m not sure what world they are describing but, clearly, “you’re not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy.”

Consider this news article about a woman-only nude spa that doesn’t allow men. On cue, enter the males presenting as females and the transgender debate ignites. That women at an all-women nude spa might not want nude men around is completely understandable, but what I found interesting is the explanation provided by the pro-transgender advocates.

Cavanagh says the rules around gender-exclusive places are typically based on fears that men will enter a space in which they are not welcome or “that non-trans women will somehow be triggered or made afraid by the presence of a penis.”

But Cavanagh says her research on violence in gendered bathrooms found no evidence of a trans woman assaulting a non-trans woman in a public space.

According to transgender activists one underlying issue is the possibility that a woman might be “triggered.” That fear, allegedly, is rooted in a fear of physical violence.

But I’d be willing to wager that most women who don’t want men (even those claiming to be women) in their all-woman nude spa are not being “triggered.” After all, the word “triggered” is typically associated with PTSD, in the sense that a current event “triggers” memories of a past trauma. That would assume, therefore, that women who object to having men in their all-woman facility have suffered some horrible trauma in their past.

Two observations:

  1. It seems entirely unlikely that so many women have suffered that much trauma. That is not likely the primary driver, though it likely is for some women. The claim that the root problem is that some people might be “triggered” is likely an explanation that exists in the minds of transgender activists and reflects their poor understanding of other people’s perspectives.
  2. If some women are being triggered regarding some past horrible trauma, how unfathomably insensitive does that make the transgender community look? “Hey, I don’t care if you were beaten and raped by a man, I’m coming in here anyway; deal with it.”

The use of the word “trigger” as a paradigm for understanding resistance to the idea of having nude men wandering around in an all-woman facility reveals that the trans-activists really don’t understand those who disagree with them. Or they don’t care about their traumatic history. Either way, that isn’t how we do things around here; in this world.

And then there’s the word “cisgender” which comes up several times in the article, and has made its way into the mainstream of the English language at an alarming rate. Cisgender is supposed to mean somebody who’s self identified sex corresponds with their biological sex. In other words, men who believe they are men and women who believe they are women.

[As an aside, even the word “gender” is a fairly recent phenomenon; people were always understood to be male or female sex until just recently.]

But here’s the interesting thing; why do we need that word? The English language already had enough words to describe men and women. That word was invented as a clever way of making “transgender” seem like a fairly innocuous alternative to “cisgender” instead of an anomaly from the norm. But in the real world men who believe they are men, and women who believe they are women, represent the norm. These so-called “cisgender” people represent well over 99% of the population.

But through the use (or, more correctly, distortion) of language a tiny fraction of the population can reframe the discussion to make that which is abnormal appear as though it is a perfectly reasonable alternative. This is much like how Atheists claim that all religious believers “don’t believe” in the other gods, therefore they are all truly Atheists, and it’s the Atheists who simply believe in “one less god” than everybody else.

The use of language clearly demonstrates that the trans-activists are living in a reality as distinct from our world as is the world of Tolkien.

The humans in Tolkien’s world are much like humans in our own world, but it’s some of the differences that make it clear that the humans in Middle Earth are, at least somewhat, distinct from humans in our world. Similarly, this story reveals that humans in the world of the trans-activist’s minds are fundamentally different from humans in the real world.

Marshall says she can’t see how a trans-positive policy could be abused.

“I don’t think a man is going to try and sneak in as a woman and pay $75 to go sit (in a pool). For what purpose?”



In the world of the trans-activists men would never pay money to see women naked, much less spend time with naked women in a pool. That’s a fascinating world, to say the least, but it couldn’t be any more distinct from our world.

In our world the porn industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, and it is fueled in large part by men paying to see women naked. And, typically, engaged in sexual acts. Furthermore, strippers exist in every major city because – get this – men will pay to see women naked. And have the trans-activists seriously never heard of the many documented cases of men sneaking cameras into women’s change rooms because men will risk prison time in order to see women naked.

That trans-activists cannot see how “trans-positive” policies might be abused is proof positive that they either lack any imagination at all or, more likely, they haven’t the foggiest idea how men – real men in the real world – think and behave. Most men have enough self-dignity not to do that, but it only takes one.


As I mentioned previously, part of what differentiates the real world from other worlds is what is described in the other world, but also what is left out. The total lack of airplanes is part of what differentiates Middle Earth from the real world. And so it goes with so many stories about homosexuals who adopt children.

Are there two parents? Yes, just like in the real world.

Are the parents going to love their children? Yes, just like in the real world.

Are the parents going to sacrifice of themselves for the sake of their children? Yes, just like in the real world.

It’s not a question of how that world is similar to our world, but how it is different that reveals which world we are describing. And in the world of homosexual adoption two key things are missing:

  1. The “parent team” is missing one of the biological sexes.
  2. At least one of the parents is not the biological parent of the children.

Activists would dismiss these observations with a fling of the hand and suggest those two things are not important. Ironically, this is, yet again, evidence that their world is not the real world. In much the same way that trans-activists fail to understand that men would, in fact, pay money to hang around naked with women in a pool, those who support gay adoption fundamentally misunderstand the sociological data with respect to factors leading to the best possible outcome for children. These are, in fact, important considerations.

Very important.

Being raised by their married, biological parents consistently produces the best possible outcome for children in the long run. Being raised by parents representing both biological sexes is another major factor. Adopted, married, parents (of opposite sexes) often produce outcomes for the kids that are reasonably good compared to married, biological parents. Further down the line you get children raised by their biological parents who are unmarried. Even further down you get divorced families, step families and single parents; the outcomes are often significantly worse for children in those settings.

Somewhere in that mix (but clearly below married, biological, parents) are the homosexual parents. According to this summary of the research, “children raised by same-sex parents are no more likely to exhibit poor outcomes than children raised by divorced heterosexual parents.” Even that paper acknowledges, “However, as previously indicated, children of divorce are at higher risk for many of these problems than children of married parents.”

This story about two gay men seeking to adopt is telling for another reason, because of its dismissal of a very important subject.

On three separate occasions, social workers asked us, “Who’s top and who’s bottom? How many men a year do you have sex with?” I was mortified. How was that relevant to raising a child? Did they ask this of heterosexual couples?

Ok, so the question of sexual logistics may not have been particularly relevant, but the question of how many partners they have every year is entirely relevant. If that isn’t asked of heterosexual couples, perhaps it ought to be. Infidelity is a significant contributor to divorce and, as I mentioned previously, children whose parents divorce tend to suffer. So, yes, the question of sexual licentiousness is extremely relevant.

That somebody would treat it as irrelevant reveals, as before, that this person’s perception of reality differs from the world we live in. They are describing some “alternate reality” distinct from our own; a world where sexual choices have no discernible impact on the lives of children.

But the queer community is not alone in defining their sexual beliefs in a way that is distinct from reality. As this writer so eloquently described, many people who discuss sexuality these days do so without any reference to the basic, underlying, purpose of sexuality; reproduction. Somehow that elephant in the room gets completely overlooked by straight and queer alike as we choose to define sexuality as something about “choice” and “self determination.”

In the real world, however, male and female are not social constructs, but the genetic sources of new life, and both are indispensable for reproduction. Heterosexual intercourse is essential to the survival of our species. And the resultant offspring deserve the best possible upbringing; raised by both of their biological parents. Hence the importance of marriage.

In one sense, that members of the queer community want to live in a different reality might be understandable. Truth be told, there are elements of this world I certainly wouldn’t mind changing; it’s nice to dream of a different, better world. But it is something else altogether to persuade yourself that this “alternate reality” is, in fact, this reality. And then to live according to that reality. That leads only to harm for yourself and for others (like adopted children). It is said that reality is that thing you bump into when you are wrong, and this likely explains all the harm that has rippled out of the sexual revolution. That’s a lot of bumps!

And how much more bizarre when those living in these alternate realities then turn around and try to convince the rest of us that our understanding of reality – indeed, our understanding of ourselves – is fundamentally flawed. That would be like Tolkien fans trying to persuade us that Hobbits can be found in our world; working at the grocery store or attending school with our neighbours.

Or Vulcans can be found on planet Earth. Only at comic-con. And I assure you, that is anything but the real world.

But this is why language is so important. Activists recognize this, which is why we are experiencing an onslaught of new vocabulary that the rest of us are having a hard time keeping up with. This new vocabulary is specifically designed to present an alternate version of reality as though it is represents the world we live in, and to reframe the discussions so as to make that which is abnormal appear normal. If we can change the way people talk, we change the way they think.

And so, the thinking goes, we can slowly integrate the alternate reality (complete with previously unheard of pronouns and words like “cisgender” and the infamous “bigot”) into this present reality and people will accept it without serious challenge. After all, it is much easier to persuade somebody to slightly adjust their thinking than it is to persuade them to overturn it entirely. And if we can get them to make two or three dozen “slight adjustments” then, before they realize it they just passed a Hobbit in the street.

Or so they will believe.


One thought on “Queers, language and the nature of reality

Comments are closed.