Is Gender Fluidity Plain Stupidity or a Sign of Higher Intelligence?
Not too long ago, in Australia, there was a debate about whether the country should legalise gay marriage…
The government spent millions on getting ‘the people’s vote’ via a national referendum on the situation. Around the same time, the Australian government agreed to follow the US military into yet another costly war without a moment of consultation.
What was both concerning and fascinating was :
a) The speed and efficiency that we agreed to a conflict that has killed countless humans.
b) The systematic conscription that uprooted the entire country to decide on whether to allow certain people to do something that is not even real.
What I mean is that marriage does not exist.
It is an idea made up by someone. Debating what marriage is, is like discussing the qualities of fairies (apologies to anyone who believes in fairies).
Marriage can be anything you want because it is make-believe.
The fact that the Government took the decision so seriously exposes the utter absurdity and crude levels of thought on which our so-called intelligent leaders operate. Now, those same idiots with their crude thinking are asked to consider another matter — gender identity.
My generation looks down on young people. We think they are morons for inventing new classes of gender and messing with our traditional A/B model of gender that has served us (terribly) for so long.
Gender, like everything in this world, is a spectrum.
The cleanest example of a spectrum is the rainbow. Looking at a rainbow, we see clearly defined colours — red, orange, yellow and all that. But what you cannot find is a clearly distinguishable point where red becomes orange, or orange becomes yellow or yellow becomes green. In other words, there are no boundaries.
The colours, as we know them, are labels used to group various parts of the spectrum. Imagine if colours were alive and a particular green said, ‘I am a yellow’. Imagine the outrage.
The problem with this is it upsets our sense of familiarity. The concept threatens a deep psychological groove that allows us some degree of stability in a chaotic world.
We create mental boundaries in a world that has no boundaries.
Gender is no different. I asked someone ‘what defines a man?’. They told me it was a penis. So I asked if a man loses their penis, do they become a woman?
When humans judge, we judge based on our tiny space in the universe. The world is massive, but we think we know it because we believe everyone thinks like us. We think the world is how we believe it to be. It’s hard for us to grasp that we only see what we believe because we attract people and circumstances that hold up that belief, and we sabotage anything that threatens to unmask such a belief. That’s just how the ego works. It’s defensive.
Our elders have passed down to us a legacy of ignorance. We have been conditioned to believe many ridiculous things, such as that there are only men and women on this planet.
If we experienced the incredible landscape of humans in great detail, we would be awed by the manly men and womanly women; manly women and womanly men; Men with vaginas, women with penises, men with both; women with both, men with neither, women with neither; Big men, little women, little women, big men. I could go on.
We have two words. Male — made up of four letters invented by someone and; Female — also a make-believe word from a fantasy language invented by someone. Each word is a label, intended to group a part of the spectrum to create security in a deranged, boundariless, edgeless, world.
These two tiny words are supposed to categorise the vast scope of colourful genders in this world.
Imagine if there were only two colours — red and blue. Imagine you were born purple and told that you had to choose to be red or blue.
‘But I am purple’, you would plead.
‘There is no such thing as a purple’, they would say.
I am speaking to my generation when I say it’s time we started looking closer.
It’s not about changing your view, it's about thinking clearer. We need to acknowledge without fear what is real and what isn’t. We look at gender fluidity and believe in our hearts that it is not real. But, in reality, we are not looking correctly. If we were, we would see very precisely that it is our view that is unreal.
Photos: Vitoria Santos, Sharon McCutcheon, Slaytina
If ya think this was alright, sign up for my free newsletter. That’s where I put all the really good stuff.
Also, do you like books, kind Sir/Madam/Other? How about bald, penis rocket spacemen who sell books? If so, visit my author page at the cracked head gasket of the economy AKA cockrocket.com.
More from Frank T Bird (That’s me):
