Trans doll?

[hashtag46]

It looks like the 'cisgender' madness has spread to the UK too.

This article (nevermind the source) goes straight to the point:



SARAH VINE: Gender, our children and the death of common sense
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...-lobby-threaten-sanity-normal-youngsters.html

"Calls made to Childline about gender identity have almost tripled in the past three years, according to the NSPCC.
Last year, the service held 2,796 counselling sessions with youngsters — some as young as 11 — who felt their biological sex did not match their gender. Three years ago, the figure was 1,102.

Take an Ofsted-endorsed lobby organisation called Educate & Celebrate. Having been awarded a £200,000 grant by the Department for Education, it works in schools to teach children as young as ten about the rights and wrongs of the gender vernacular. It believes categorising children as boys and girls is ‘gender-biased’ and offers a staggering array of alternative terms.

Next month, they publish a book, Can I Tell You About Diversity, which features a 12-year-old girl undergoing treatment to become male, to be distributed to primary and secondary schools. Their target audience is children not even ready to choose their A-level subjects, let alone challenge their own biology.

If there is a genuine increase in gender-fluidity among children, I believe it’s entirely man-made. Young people aren’t naturally questioning their sex in 2016 any more than they did in back in 1916; it’s just that now they are being actively encouraged — some might say indoctrinated — to do so.

In attempting to improve the lives of a vanishingly small minority, we are threatening the sanity of — and, yes, I’m going to say it — normal children."

 

[Rightguide]

Transhumanism is silly, but largely apolitical.

Until Democrats need a minority to "protect."

 

[KingOrfeo]

Until Democrats need a minority to "protect."

Oh, I'm sure if transhumans ever exist, they can take care of themselves.

 

[Rightguide]

A dystopia is never a blueprint. It is something the author is always against.

Or simply in fear of, but then without experience that would only be a theoretical judgment.

 

[Christobal]

When a 7 year old declares she wants to be a Disney princess and won't take the costume off--

You might say....

Of course you are. I will move heaven and earth to make that so.

You are 7 you don't know what you want. Well except the chicken nuggets because you have the palette for the good food we all try to achieve.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Yes, I've read Brave New World, and it is very clear Huxley is describing nothing he would wish into being, no more than Orwell would want to live in Oceania.

Now, I'll grant you, BNW is a much subtler dystopia than 1984: In Oceania, people's daily lives are full of want, dreariness, hate, fear, suspicion and enthusiasm. In the World State, people's daily lives are full of abundance, pleasure, amusement, satisfying work and drug-induced contentment. Huxley was able to show how this is unsatisfactory by introducing three characters who are dissatisfied with it, and it is clearly they, not World Controller Mustapha Mond, who represent the author's point of view.

But Orwell also understood clearly why such a life would be unsatisfactory. From his essay "Pleasure Spots" (1946):

The question only arises because in exploring the physical universe man has made no attempt to explore himself. Much of what goes by the name of pleasure is simply an effort to destroy consciousness. If one started by asking, what is man? what are his needs? how can he best express himself? one would discover that merely having the power to avoid work and live one's life from birth to death in electric light and to the tune of tinned music is not a reason for doing so. Man needs warmth, society, leisure, comfort and security: he also needs solitude, creative work and the sense of wonder. If he recognised this he could use the products of science and industrialism eclectically, applying always the same test: does this make me more human or less human? He would then learn that the highest happiness does not lie in relaxing, resting, playing poker, drinking and making love simultaneously. And the instinctive horror which all sensitive people feel at the progressive mechanisation of life would be seen not to be a mere sentimental archaism, but to be fully justified. For man only stays human by preserving large patches of simplicity in his life, while the tendency of many modern inventions-in particular the film, the radio and the aeroplane-is to weaken his consciousness, dull his curiosity, and, in general, drive him nearer to the animals.