Homosexuals are never satisfied
THE hand-flapping hysteria generated by the planned removal of the rainbow-coloured Taylor Square crosswalk is symptomatic of a politically correct push by the noisy end of the homosexual lobby to inflict its narrow agenda on the broader community.
Roads Minister Duncan Gay may have thought he was doing the right thing when he gave Sydney City Council permission to install the gaily painted rainbow crossing at a cost of $95,000 but, as these gestures so often tend to do, his well-meaning act has boomeranged.
As with all other gifts to noisy protest movements, the rainbow crosswalk has again demonstrated the failure of appeasement.
Too much is never enough for minority activists.
Forget the fact idiots want to have photographs of themselves lying on the crosswalk on Oxford St, one of the city's busiest thoroughfares, risking their lives.
The minority lobby sees the opportunity to again inflict itself upon the majority.
The minister's gesture of a painted crosswalk for the month culminating in Mardi Gras, on top of the street closures and the taxpayer-funding, was never going to satisfy those who try and foist a philosophy of homosexual exceptionalism on the public.
But the rainbow display is at the lighter end of the activist spectrum. Homosexual marriage is at the darker end, along with a rapidly accelerating assault on the language and traditional culture and society.
While reading a recent article about ageing feminist Gloria Steinem in a recent edition of the weekly The New Yorker magazine, the word "cisgender" jumped from the page.
Searching the internet, I discovered that a cisgender individual is the opposite of a transgender individual.
That is, he or she is gender normal. Cisgender people are those who "have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity".
They would be the overwhelming majority of people on the planet.
Latin scholars would recognise the prefix "cis" as meaning "on this side of" and probably think of the many references in Roman history to Cisalpine Gauls, those who came from "this" or the Roman side of the Alps - as opposed to those Gallic unfortunates who fed on frogs and were definitely on the other side of the Alps.
According to one website, the term cisgender was made up in 1995 by a transsexual man from the Netherlands named Carl Buijs who was apparently bothered that he didn't know what to call normal people.
"As for the origin, I just made it up. I just kept running into the problem of what to call non-trans people in various discussions, and one day it just hit me: non-trans equals cis. Therefore, cisgendered," he wrote in 1996.
The subtext is quite plain to see. Using the word "normal" to describe people who fall into the largest gender framework, those whose sex matches their gender, is a no-no because it might make those who don't feel their gender actually aligns with their natural sexual fit-out are not quite normal, perhaps even abnormal.
Which, if one accepts that normal means usual, typical or expected would accurately describe those whose gender-sex match is not the usual, or is atypical or perhaps is even unexpected beyond the boundaries of Sydney City lord mayor Clover Moore's limited electoral franchise.
This creative relabelling of what's normal is part of the homosexual inclusion paradox.
While those homosexuals protesting in favour of changing the definition of marriage to include those of the same sex argue this is a step toward equality, they are simultaneously representing the right to discriminate in favour of homosexuals, as NSW upper house MP Catherine Cusack discovered when she recently asked Nicholas Parkhill, the head of the taxpayer-funded HIV/AIDS support group ACON, whether it provided services to the 20 per cent of people who contract the disease every year who are heterosexual.
Parkhill said ACON was founded by the gay community for the gay community in response to the HIV epidemic.
"It's very essence is as a gay organisation," he said.
As the organisation receives some $13 million a year in taxpayer funds, that would seem a very non-inclusive, discriminatory approach that would probably be in breach of all government guidelines.
If it is being run as a gay organisation it is surely deserving of an audit to ensure it isn't in breach of the anti-discrimination laws - or have those who are demanding inclusion been given the right to exclude those who are not members of their minority group? If it is using taxpayers' funds to pay for its political campaigns, which among the many views held by the naturally diverse homosexual organisations does it deem acceptable?
You can bet it is not helping members of the "Proudly Gay and Publicly Anti-Gay Marriage" organisation.
Those who formerly regarded themselves as boring and ordinary and normal but now learn they are actually cisgender - may not like to think they are, collectively, cissies.
Roads Minister Duncan Gay may have thought he was doing the right thing when he gave Sydney City Council permission to install the gaily painted rainbow crossing at a cost of $95,000 but, as these gestures so often tend to do, his well-meaning act has boomeranged.
As with all other gifts to noisy protest movements, the rainbow crosswalk has again demonstrated the failure of appeasement.
Too much is never enough for minority activists.
Forget the fact idiots want to have photographs of themselves lying on the crosswalk on Oxford St, one of the city's busiest thoroughfares, risking their lives.
The minority lobby sees the opportunity to again inflict itself upon the majority.
The minister's gesture of a painted crosswalk for the month culminating in Mardi Gras, on top of the street closures and the taxpayer-funding, was never going to satisfy those who try and foist a philosophy of homosexual exceptionalism on the public.
But the rainbow display is at the lighter end of the activist spectrum. Homosexual marriage is at the darker end, along with a rapidly accelerating assault on the language and traditional culture and society.
While reading a recent article about ageing feminist Gloria Steinem in a recent edition of the weekly The New Yorker magazine, the word "cisgender" jumped from the page.
Searching the internet, I discovered that a cisgender individual is the opposite of a transgender individual.
That is, he or she is gender normal. Cisgender people are those who "have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity".
They would be the overwhelming majority of people on the planet.
Latin scholars would recognise the prefix "cis" as meaning "on this side of" and probably think of the many references in Roman history to Cisalpine Gauls, those who came from "this" or the Roman side of the Alps - as opposed to those Gallic unfortunates who fed on frogs and were definitely on the other side of the Alps.
According to one website, the term cisgender was made up in 1995 by a transsexual man from the Netherlands named Carl Buijs who was apparently bothered that he didn't know what to call normal people.
"As for the origin, I just made it up. I just kept running into the problem of what to call non-trans people in various discussions, and one day it just hit me: non-trans equals cis. Therefore, cisgendered," he wrote in 1996.
The subtext is quite plain to see. Using the word "normal" to describe people who fall into the largest gender framework, those whose sex matches their gender, is a no-no because it might make those who don't feel their gender actually aligns with their natural sexual fit-out are not quite normal, perhaps even abnormal.
Which, if one accepts that normal means usual, typical or expected would accurately describe those whose gender-sex match is not the usual, or is atypical or perhaps is even unexpected beyond the boundaries of Sydney City lord mayor Clover Moore's limited electoral franchise.
This creative relabelling of what's normal is part of the homosexual inclusion paradox.
While those homosexuals protesting in favour of changing the definition of marriage to include those of the same sex argue this is a step toward equality, they are simultaneously representing the right to discriminate in favour of homosexuals, as NSW upper house MP Catherine Cusack discovered when she recently asked Nicholas Parkhill, the head of the taxpayer-funded HIV/AIDS support group ACON, whether it provided services to the 20 per cent of people who contract the disease every year who are heterosexual.
Parkhill said ACON was founded by the gay community for the gay community in response to the HIV epidemic.
"It's very essence is as a gay organisation," he said.
As the organisation receives some $13 million a year in taxpayer funds, that would seem a very non-inclusive, discriminatory approach that would probably be in breach of all government guidelines.
If it is being run as a gay organisation it is surely deserving of an audit to ensure it isn't in breach of the anti-discrimination laws - or have those who are demanding inclusion been given the right to exclude those who are not members of their minority group? If it is using taxpayers' funds to pay for its political campaigns, which among the many views held by the naturally diverse homosexual organisations does it deem acceptable?
You can bet it is not helping members of the "Proudly Gay and Publicly Anti-Gay Marriage" organisation.
Those who formerly regarded themselves as boring and ordinary and normal but now learn they are actually cisgender - may not like to think they are, collectively, cissies.
