“Identifying” as Old Enough

  • July 10, 2023

If a man has a right to be treated as a woman simply by “identifying” as one then I see no reason why I haven’t got a right to “identify” as old enough to collect Socialist Insecurity. After all, if a man can steal scholarships and awards in competitive sports from women, then surely it is at least as much my right to claw back some of the money stolen from me by “identifying” as 62 – the minimum age one must be in order to claw some of it back.

I worry there might not be any Socialist Insecurity left for me to collect when I am 62, which is still a ways away for me.

But why should it be?

I often feel old.

Isn’t that essentially the same thing as feeling one is in fact the opposite sex? The fact that one isn’t does not seem to matter – at least, to those insisting that one’s sex is a matter of how one decides to “identify.”

Mark that.

Precision with meaning matters. These “trans” people (they were in more linguistically honest times referred to as transvestites – meaning they dressed up as and pretended to be the sex they weren’t) insist that they aren’t just dressing or that they are pretending. They insist they are the opposite sex – the facts of biological sex notwithstanding. It is on the verge of becoming a crime to – as it is styled – “misgender” a man dressed up like and pretending to be a woman (and vice-versa). It is already the case that anyone who “misgenders” a man dressing like and pretending to be a woman is guilty of “hate” and subject to vituperation as a moral defective.

Well, fine.

If a man can dress up like and pretend to be a woman and others are obliged to accept him as such – to include all the perks of actually being a woman, such as being eligible to compete with women for scholarships and awards – then I demand acceptance of my assertion that I am a man old enough to collect Socialist Insecurity.

The logic is unassailable.

Unfortunately, the politics aren’t tenable.

This is so because the only varieties of “identity” that are acceptable – and enforceable – are those approved by the Left.

That is to say, the Woke.

For them, objective reality is selectively fungible. They will insist that we must accept as a “man” a woman who dresses like a man and acts like one. Just as they insist they favor “choice” – but only the “choices” they favor.

They will almost certainly insist it is acceptable for a man in his 60s to “identify” as an adolescent, so as to be able to take a 15-year-old girl to the prom. But they will never abide a straight white man “identifying” as old enough to collect back some of the money stolen from him.

Because it would be helpful to the straight white man – and the whole point of all this selective “identifying” is to demoralize, undermine and attack him. If you disagree, if you think it is not so, then let’s see how it goes when I “identify” as old enough to collect a check. Even if I get and show up wearing a really top-shelf costume and act the part convincingly.

We don’t have to wait to see, of course.

We know exactly what would happen if I were to show up at the Socialist Insecurity office insisting I am in fact older than it says I am on my driver’s license; that I am in fact old enough to collect a check. In fact, it is certain that if I were to state what I feel my age is on a Socialist Insecurity form in order to collect a check, I would be pursued criminally for lying about my age.

Let that one sink in a minute.

Objective reality does exist – but only when it is (per Orwell) necessary for it to exist. When it suits the needs of those who insist it is fungible – when they say it is.

It is sometimes necessary (per the explanation of the matter given by O’Brien, the Inner Party Member who befriends and then tortures Winston Smith, the novel’s main character) that two-plus-two equals four. But then, there are times- when the Party says it is necessary that they equal five.

And that there is no contradiction in believing both are true – when the Party says they are.

The point is who gets to define what objective reality exists – not objective reality, itself. If the latter, then there is an arbiter of things that stands above the exercise of power that can be appealed to. There are standards. There is truth. Things are knowable because things can be . . . identified, irrespective of how anyone feels about them.

But this undermines the Party – that is, power – because it makes it possible to question it.

What is wanted, then, is not merely that all of us pretend to agree that a man who pretends he is a woman is a woman in the literally true sense. That is a superficiality, just the same as “masks” – as such.

What’s demanded is that we agree to not even think about questioning whatever we are told.

If we do agree, then objective reality becomes whatever power says it is and at any given moment. It can be something entirely different a moment later. This is what Orwell meant by Doublethink. It is a form of conscious and unconscious derangement, agreed to by people who at the same time know perfectly well what they believe isn’t true yet also believe that what is true is whatever they are told they must believe is true.

Such people have come to a kind of intuitive understanding of what is expected that changes with the fluidity of a turbid stream yet has the power of absolute truth for as long as people are told it is the truth.

This is how it is possible, on the one hand, to maintain that a man who pretends he is a woman actually is one – and has a right to be treated as one – and, on the other, to deny that I have a right to collect a Socialist Insecurity check because I am not old enough in fact, irrespective of how old I “identify” as being.

It holds no water to “identify” as having paid taxes, either – as opposed to actually having paid them. Nor to “identify” as “vaccinated.” But a kid who insists she is a cat must be meow’d too and given a litter box to do her business in. Rest assured – it will hold water – when it suits to discover that a 60-year-old who “identifies” as an adolescent – or a German Shepherd – not only has a right to date adolescents and German Shepherds but that we must acknowledge, must accept, their right to do so.

Such calculated and selective enforcement of feelings over facts serves the interests of power by turning objective reality not merely into a matter of whim, ever-shifting – but a reality determined by those who have the power to transform their whims into “truths” that cannot be questioned, that must be immediately and supinely agreed with and obeyed.

It is how it will become acceptable to do the unthinkable – if enough of us don’t start thinking again and stop worrying about how others feel about it.

. . .

f you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  If that fails, email me at EPeters952@yahoo.com and I will send you a copy directly!

The post “Identifying” as Old Enough appeared first on EPautos – Libertarian Car Talk.

Spread the love