A major part of the frustration we all are experiencing is that we live in times of ambiguity. For instance, bees are now legally considered fish in California under the state’s endangered species law. It’s easy for people to get confused and annoyed with the debate about whether or not a sperm is a fetus or a species, what is human, what is an animal, what is a man, and what is a woman. Reality should matter, however, a fascist government can bend reality or even erase it if the party so deems it necessary for an agenda. Tonight on Ground Zero, Clyde Lewis talks about AMBEEGUITY – WHERE BIRDS IDENTIFY AS BEES AND BEES JUST WANT TO BE FISH.
I received a story yesterday in my email from the Sacramento Bee. When I read it, I began to understand why we as a people are getting frustrated with the world.
The frustration that we all are experiencing is that we live in times of ambiguity.
Let me explain — we live in times where birds identify as bees and bees are now identified as fish.
This is where the Sacramento Bee story comes in.
Bees are now legally considered fish in California under the state’s endangered species law, an appeals court in Sacramento ruled Tuesday.
The 1970 act explicitly protected “fish,” which were initially defined as invertebrates. And because the act has protected snails and other invertebrates that live on land since, Tuesday’s ruling said it interpreted the legislation to also include bees.
“Accordingly, a terrestrial invertebrate, like each of the four bumble bee species, may be listed as an endangered or threatened species under the Act,” the 3rd district California Court of Appeals Associate Justice Ronald Robie wrote.
In short, the ruling restored protections to bumblebees, which were initially classified as endangered by California Fish and Game Commission in 2019.
Agricultural groups later appealed this decision, and in 2020, a judge from the Sacramento County Superior Court sided with farmers, citing the law was only intended to protect invertebrates who live in marine habitats such as fish.
This most recent court case pitted California agricultural groups, including almond, citrus and cotton farmers, opposing bees as an endangered species, against the commission and the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.
Farming groups initially petitioned against the term invertebrate as “limited to only aquatic invertebrates,” in order to exclude bumblebees as a threatened species.
Xerces spokeswoman Sarina Jepsen said that reclassifying bumblebees as fish is “absolutely essential” to their survival.
Under the act, bumblebees will be protected from “take,” which includes any activities that can cause them to go extinct.
Bees are invertebrates and so are fish and so well, we see that you can legislate 2+2=5 in the most Orwellian fashion or should we somehow fit the number 42 form the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the galaxy where author Douglas Adams says “So long and thanks for the fish — that are like bees or bees like birds or identify as fish.
Again, we get frustrated over ambiguity and yet it is pervasive in all that is happening today.
It looks like we all need to have that talk about the birds and the bees and how they identify as fish.
It’s easy for people to get confused by, and frustrated with, the debate about whether or not a sperm is a fetus or a species, what is human, what is animal, what is man , what is a woman.
This doesn’t make any sense because we were all taught the birds and the bees– but believe me the political elite are debating over whether or not 2+2=5.
In the book, 1984, by George Orwell, the statement that 2 + 2 = 5 refers to the manipulation of truth. Winston himself insists on the objectivity of truth, represented by the contrasting statement “2 + 2 = 4.” Orwell’s warning, however, is that truth itself can be manipulated and undermined by the State. This serves as one of the key themes of 1984.
What is being said is that reality matters and a fascist government can bend reality or even erase it if the party so deems it necessary for an agenda.
In this bizarre world we now live in, it becomes necessary to have to explain something no one would ever have expected to have to defend.
In the present moment, we find that circumstance to be the case and that thing to be that two and two do, in fact, make four. Men and women are different – identifying yourself as a woman or a man when you are biologically neither winds up being a dilemma and what is most unfair is that it should be noted that if the majority of people do not understand the right pronouns or the right attitude about new ideas then please take a moment and understand that it is not that people are rude — it is that perhaps you are doing a bad job in trying to bend objective truth,
Again, you cannot continue pushing the issue that 2+2=5 when it is indeed 4.
Further, it must be reasserted, against all reasonable expectation, that this claim about the sum of two and two being four is not merely some subjective determination or, more insidiously, an assertion of hegemonic power.
So it is that such a need might arise in such a time in which irrational subjectivity becomes so desperate to defend and assert itself that no truth, no matter how simple or basic, can be considered safe from the ravages of people who have a vested ideological interest in its being wrong.
Saying something is something does not mean it is something –and if we use objective truth we realize that there is an effort to divide and confuse the narratives because the party says so — or they have found a loophole in their laws giving them the reason to make outrageous statements that we know are untrue.
There seems to be a bot of backlash happening during Gay Pride month –and realized this when I spoke with my gay neighbor.
He is a conservative and I asked him if he was going to be hanging out at the pride parade and he said — he really doesn’t feel so prideful about being identified with a group of people that are losing their collective minds.
He was telling me that they big problem now is that the transgender movement’s arguments seem unclear, sometimes even incoherent.
If the claim of trans people is that they were born into one biological sex category, such as male, but are actually female, what does that mean? Is it a claim that reproduction-based sex categories are an illusion? That one can have a female brain (whatever that means) in a body with male genitalia? That there is a non-material soul that can be of one sex but in the body of the other sex?
Now please — I am trying to objective and not transphobic. i have a niece who is Trans and I have also been at parties, and even knew a Trans sword swallower.
I am not trying to be cruel or angry — for the sake of open talk and the fact that it is gay pride month there needs to be a discussion about just what the trans world aim is — what do they want really?
Now, keep in mind that the concerns of a people born intersex are distinct, raising issues different from the trans movement.
If the claim of trans people is that they were socialized into one gender category, such as man/masculinity, but feel constrained by the category or feel more comfortable in the norms of the other category — that I can understand, I have known enough people in my day that are like this– and its because the business of both acting and broadcasting there are many people with many serious views on these subjects
And as I have been talking about body autonomy, I worry that the transhuman goal is to push people into the idea that they are at war with their own body and with that in mind they feel trapped –and wonder if they are not who they think they are.
Or they are being manipulated into thinking that their lack of the list of life may pin them down to traditional gender roles.
Are all of these dramatic procedures warranted? Are the use hormones, including puberty-blockers in children — consistent with an ecological worldview that takes seriously the consequences of dramatic human interventions into organisms and ecosystems?
With so little known about the etiology of trans, is the surgical/chemical approach warranted?
This whole trend may in fact be a result of oppression and detachment and in a normal situation it wouldn’t make all that of an impact but in a world where we have all become dehumanized — some people are called fish when they are really called bees.
And as the saying goes a fish out water can not be expected to act like a fish.
We have a month set aside to recognize those who do not have heterosexual sex. It is also a month to politicize what we all do in the bedroom — and even with all of the rainbows and flashy floats this is seriously an Orwellian affair. I can bet you that even suggesting this will make me sound transphobic.
And of course, most of those who make the accusations are not even trans.
I have always thought those sexual matters should be personal and if they were only personal matters there would be no compelling reason for a public discussion. But the trans movement has proposed public policies — from opening sex/gender-specific bathrooms and locker rooms to anyone who identifies with that sex/gender, to public funding for surgery and hormone treatments that require collective decisions. There’s no escape from the need for everyone to reach conclusions, however tentative, about the trans movement’s claims.
The militancy with which the government tends to take this makes it suspect especially when they stand accused of trying to reduce population — or kill off one gender entirely. We are now seeing that Monkey Pox like AIDS is now spreading through homosexual intercourse and somehow the governments come up smelling like a rose when they defend trans militancy.
How is it that we can endorse the celebration of ambiguity as a virtue? Terms need to be solid before they can be respected. This does not mean people who are transgender need to be harmed — it is just the ambiguity is cheered on my neoliberal virtue signalers that have no idea about the confusion they bring to the discourse.
The trans movement seems to be be understood because they always seem to flip the process of understanding routinely asserting that gender is not the product of social forces but is a private internal state of being, which may be innate and immutable (opinions in the trans movement vary). In other words, transgender ideology asserts that gender is something one feels and has no necessary connection to one’s body and reproductive system. Trans activists routinely assert that “sex is a social construction,” that the biological distinctions of male and female are not objectively real but are created by societies.
After speaking with my gay neighbor, I am learning that there are differences of opinion within the transgender movement and the media only gives us one –and liberal white heterosexuals are faking their understanding so that they don’t appear to be insensitive of transphobic.
Two comedians have been under the microscope for even joking about these confusions — both Dave Chappelle and Ricky Gervais,
Both are being labeled transphobic and one was nearly killed when someone rushed the stage at the Hollywood Bowl.
Dave Chapelle was nearly stabbed during one of his routines. His assailant said that he had been triggered by some of Chappelle’s jokes about those who are transgender,
Gervais makes the off color remark about women: ‘you know the dinosaurs that have wombs.” He then goes on to say, “I love the new women. They’re great. The new ones we’ve been seeing lately—the ones with beards and cocks.”
Oops, no ambiguity there and thus, he gets a strike from the trans community — be broke the taboo of ambiguity — which depletes their over inflated exceptionalism.
In October of last year, Chappelle’s jokes inspired a mass walkout at Netflix led by LGBTQ+ employees. But if anything, in the months since, Chappelle has doubled down on his stance. Earlier this month, Chappelle headlined four performances at the Hollywood Bowl for the inaugural Netflix Is a Joke festival, where he added even more jokes about transgender people.
Despite promising to stop telling trans jokes at the end of his last Netflix special, his fourth and final show ended with him getting assaulted by an audience member who later told the New York Post that he had reached his “breaking point” while watching Chappelle make jokes about the LGBTQ+ community and the unhoused, and found the new set “triggering.”
I can again make the argument that the jokes that were told take away all of the ambiguity — about what it means to be trans.
It airs out all of the frustration of constantly hearing that sex is a social construct — and that for some reason being transgender is not a social construct.
If sex is socially constructed, that implies that it could be constructed in some other way.
So there lies the question — how can it?
Do you know of any other way for humans to reproduce other than with an egg produced by a female and sperm produced by a male?
By what means would human reproduction be socially constructed differently?”
Well the answer would be epigenetics — something that leads into the argument against creating babies in a lab — or even genetically selecting babies with genetically altered DNA that would increase the ambiguity even more — or eventually correct what many think is Gods mistakes.
The ability to edit human genes and, consequently, actually engineer a human being from birth, is something we’ve always thought of as Gattaca-style science fiction.
Growing an edited embryo into a fully-fledged adult human wouldn’t just remove a health problem or, in the dystopian future model, create an augmented human. It would leave lasting changes that are passed on; something that many scientists say is desirable in the case of awful health problems, but much more questionable in the case of enhancements.
In Aldous Huxley’s novel, Brave New World, society is rigidly split into five castes determined through embryonic modification. Much of the consternation surrounding the idea of “designer babies” is that germline editing could make Huxley’s dystopian vision of the future a reality.
At the moment, the prospect of a world populated by genetically modified humans is barely remaining only in the pages of science fiction.
To think that transhumanism would eliminate the confusion of what gender by removing all sexual desires — babies made in factories — and the dead becoming compost.
This is the dystopian future that will end all of this ambiguity –and the powers that be hope we all get the plan — so that they do not have to implement it — they want us to accept it voluntarily.
George Orwell once commented that ambiguities about sex will force governments to abolish the orgasm.
There will be no need to procreate if we are all reduced to genderless drones.
Before 1984 was written Orwell had a fear that motivated him to write the classic dystopian book, Orwell feared that “the very concept of objective truth was fading out of the world,”
This is the dark heart of Nineteen Eighty-Four. It gripped him long before he came up with Big Brother, Oceania, Newspeak or the telescreen, and it’s more important than any of them.
H.G. Wells the well-known Science Fiction author, was a Fabian socialist and was also well known for predicting the future –probably because he was in ion the agenda.
Toward the end of his life H.G. Wells lost his hope and zeal for mankind. In his last published work, “Mind at the End of its Tether,” Wells wondered aloud, as it were, if it wasn’t time to replace the human species with something more evolutionarily desirable.
It is apparent that even the men behind the science fiction staples of our lifetime were about to give up on humanity because they never learn form their mistakes.
In 2022, the year zero, every explanation given by politicians these days seems muddled and full of misdirection and lies.
The situation reminds me of the passage of Lewis Carroll’s, Alice in Wonderland. Alice speaks with Humpty Dumpty about his choice of words and his ability to twist them so that he can appear intelligent:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”
However, the conditioning continues and with every rainbow flag flying there comes a caveat of treading lightly around those who identify as trans. But who is pushing these ambiguous arguments?
Does any of this really matter? Well, it matters to teenage girls who may not want to change clothes in a locker room next to a boy who identifies as a girl.
It matters to women at a health club that allows transwomen in a “women only” space. It matters to clients in a women’s homeless shelter that refuses to restrain sexually aggressive behavior of transwomen in order to be “inclusive.”
It matters to the woman who is bumped from a country’s Olympic weightlifting team when a transwoman is allowed to compete as a woman. It matters to the women who were sexually assaulted by a transwoman who was housed in a women’s prison. It matters to the lesbians who choose not to date transwomen—because their sexual orientation is toward female humans and not male humans who identify as women—and are then called bigots and ostracized.
It matters to High school and elementary school boys that now have to use restrooms that have tampon dispensers mounted on the walls for boys who we are told can have menstrual cycles.
And it matters to the woman who had to fight to get her job back after being fired for publicly stating that she believes “that sex is immutable and not to be conflated with gender identity.”
treating males with female gender identities as women in every possible context is a politically inflammatory act. In effect it sends a contemptuously dismissive message to women already conscious of unequal treatment of their interests. This message says: the interests of males with female gender identities are more important than yours.
This is why people are tuning out of the militant gay pride push for transgender agendas.
People find it hard to understand, not because they are bigots but because it seems at odds with material reality.
If we are to reach an understanding — those who are trans need to be aware of how this appears and what it says about ambiguity which engenders confusion.
The problem if it can be solved is quite obvious there has to be accepted rules of intellectual engagement that require evidence and logic to establish a proposition.
It just can’t be “This is the argument so there –get over it.”
People won’t and they get angry when they try to understand the rules to favor only to learn that rules change — or that they don’t apply anymore.
This should worry everyone, even people who may never have direct experience with transgender policies or are not interested in philosophical debates with people who are trans so that they can understand and not hate because it is different.
Trans people need to expect questions but we should never tolerate harm to these people, even if you find them different or if their beliefs do not match yours.