This week, the multinational consumer goods corporation Proctor & Gamble announced that its brand Always will remove the Venus symbol from its feminine hygiene products “in an effort to be more inclusive to transgender customers.” According to press reports, this measure was the result of LGBTQ activists publicly admonishing the company that not all users of these products are biological females.
Once upon a time, I worked with a “gay” guy (a male homosexual) who claimed to use feminine hygiene products to attend to some rather disgusting matters resulting from his sexual practices. He further claimed that this off-label use of these products by some homosexual males was not at all uncommon.
Leaving aside my initial revulsion and puzzlement at the level of a mind that would find it appropriate to share this kind of information with a coworker, my response was something along the lines of “so what?” If someone purchases a product with the intent of doing something weird with it, this has negligible impact on me or anyone else. There are people who routinely buy products like soap flakes or spackling putty for the purpose of eating them, and while this certainly poses a risk to their long-term health, it hardly rises to the level of a public health crisis.
But of course, there’s far more going on here than the off-label use of consumer goods by a handful of weirdos.
Years ago during a very brief stint as a resident of Los Angeles, I learned that there were quite a few straight men who were in the habit of using makeup to enhance their appearance, to cover blemishes and the like. I presumed that this was probably a point of vanity that had its genesis in the movie industry. My point is that I never saw this give rise to vociferous activist groups lobbying Revlon or Maybelline to expand their marketing efforts beyond their traditional market of women.
Following the announcement by P&G, the LGBTQ advocacy group Trans Actual lauded the decision on social media, but chastised some biological females who expressed dismay at the move, which they believe is part of a trend to marginalize women in favor of “trans women” (biological males who self-identify as female).
Which is just the sort of catty, condescending response I would expect from an outfit like this.
In light of the very real emerging trend, which does, in fact, marginalize biological females in favor of biological males who self-identify as females, it’s hard to argue that these concerned women don’t have a point.
Just to establish a baseline here: The last U.S. Census, taken in 2010, established that between 3% and 4% of our population self-identify as homosexual or bisexual, with less than 1% self-identifying as “transgender.” The qualifications for the latter remain conveniently and intentionally obscure, but these numbers do give rise to the question of why we ought to pay so much in the way of deference to such a minuscule segment of society.
Lately, I’ve been wondering how the average unaffiliated, non-ideological American voter is processing such news items as a Texas jury ruling against the father who sought to protect his 7-year-old son from a forced gender transition by the boy’s mother, the spate of biologically male athletes who have been allowed to compete in their sports of choice as women, and the emerging and decidedly bizarre sex scandal involving a California congresswoman who reportedly had multiple simultaneous sexual relationships with at least two of her staffers.
I’ve considered how these voters view our being lectured on religion and morality by an avowed homosexual, or what they think of states seeking to mandate under law that clergy summarily adopt the LGBTQ agenda – or else.
What I’ve covered above are only a few of the surreal and bizarre culturally focused measures being advanced by the political left, but these must be and, I believe, are being considered by the electorate in light of the patently communistic policy measures being advocated by many of the current Democratic presidential hopefuls. One candidate wants to ban automobiles, several want to put a cap on how much wealth a person can amass, and nearly all want to put an end to firearms in private hands and make America a borderless nation. And all of this is taking place at the same time the Democratic leadership in Washington is doing its level best to negate the results of the 2016 election, with its most recent efforts in this area being conducted in secret.
Well, I’ll tell you how I think the American electorate is processing all of this, and where they’ll stand when all is said and done.
Donald Trump was elected as our president because quite a few Americans had gotten a peek at the entrenched Deep State leviathan. This was largely due to the policies of past administrations, as well as the quantum leap toward statism we experienced under Barack Obama. At that time, those who hadn’t actually seen the leviathan nevertheless became aware of its existence.
Once Trump was elected and the Washington establishment grasped the reality of the threat to their power, the leviathan fully emerged from its swampy lair, roaring and thrashing. This is what we are now witnessing vis-à-vis the left’s aggressive and vigorous activism.
So, when voters reject socialism once again and reelect Donald Trump next year, it won’t be because they’ve become hateful and intolerant of the infinitesimal minority of LGBTQ persons who are being systematically persecuted in ways their advocates seem to be unable to clearly articulate, or because they don’t care about poor little Pablo from south of the border who’s just seeking a better life for his family, or because they simply love hearing about active shooter situations with high victim counts on the nightly news.
When the president is reelected, it will be because voters have become sick of institutionalized perversion being advanced in the name of diversity and tolerance, of being demonized for honoring the rule of law and notions of national sovereignty, of having their values undermined and disparaged with foul invective, of having their children forcibly indoctrinated into wickedness and of seeing the increasing weaponization of the Constitution itself by corrupt lawyers who have, at least to date, proven themselves extremely adept at manipulating the law to serve their purposes.
Article posted with permission from Erik Rush
Become an insider!
Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.