Wednesday, April 24, 2024
HomeNewsWho’d be a ‘B’?

Who’d be a ‘B’?


LGBT. We all know what this term stands for, but the initials do recall a Soviet-era state security organisation, and it seems to operate in a similar fashion. The term implies a unified bloc who are in entire agreement and stand against those not of the bloc. Campaigners trot out this term as if anything that transgresses the ideology of those who identify with it are social criminals to be attacked and ostracised until they issue a grovelling apology. The bloc has been extending itself and the number of letters used to the point of absurdity. All of these additions are henceforward regarded as victims of those not of the bloc and are to be championed and defended with no limit of taste and decency.

It is therefore ironic that this so-called bloc is not a bloc at all, but a demand for orthodoxy. It is anything but unified. The ‘equality’ demanded by the bloc does not extend to the members of the bloc itself, co-opted or otherwise.

Certainly the Cinderella element is denoted by the letter ‘B’. They seem to be regarded as not quite as politically correct as the other letters, and have to know their place in the pecking order.

Channel 4 has released a comedy-drama entitled The Bisexual. It is achingly politically correct. The strongest personality is an Asian lesbian, a supporting character, who helps run a convenience store. The heterosexual men are all insecure and vapid. Sex is regarded as a public utility to be supplied on demand.

Despite these credentials, the programme has been subject to not one, but two highly negative reviews in The Guardian, of all places. Both are poorly written, being little more than synopses interspersed with curiously similar nit-picking to come from two different writers. It encouraged me to watch the programme for myself to see why the politically correct were dumping on something politically correct. The reviews are little more than some form of Left-wing-style ideological denunciation and do not rate the programme on artistic merits. The first episode was not a brilliant opener – this is not The IT Crowd, Father Ted, or Black Books – but it was okay given the subject matter of middle-class liberals in their bubble existence living and working in a recently gentrified part of London. It shows promise. But that does not seem to be enough for the bloc or their ‘allies’.

The ‘grievance community’ represented by this bloc has a hierarchy and appears to discriminate against bisexuals for the apparent crime of occasionally having heterosexual relations, which seems to be regarded as taboo unless one partner is transgender, in which case the heterosexuality is moot. Bisexuals’ place seems to be only as ‘allies’ of other orientations that seem to be regarded as more ‘committed’ to the ’cause’. This is despite being the third letter in the umbrella term for sexual minorities before all those other letters were tacked on for thinner and thinner slices of our population. This kind of squabbling is also apparent between feminists and transgender activists, degenerating into open violence and threats. It is ironic that groups that bleat about discrimination and intolerance are the ones that are perfectly happy to discriminate and be intolerant.

In fact this bias extends to the much-publicised Pride demonstrations, where bisexual groups were told they could not participate for ‘administrative’ reasons.

These grievance communities use their ‘grievance’ as a shield against criticism for behaviour they would strongly attack in others. The fact that they are not more openly shown up for this bigotry is that their ‘grievance’ somehow bestows an aura of quite undeserved virtue and purity that prevents valid accusations of intolerance being levelled. They are advocates, nothing more, and should not be given any elevated status for an assumed secular piety.

This ties in with the whole ‘gay cake’ controversy, where the supposedly ‘moderate’ gay advocacy group Stonewall produced a misleading statement which misinterpreted the judgement, just to reinforce their intolerance of dissenting opinion. They accused the Supreme Court of ‘saying the right of freedom of expression in effect allows people to discriminate against others based on who they are‘. This is untrue. The court found that no such discrimination was in evidence. Stonewall state they will now ‘take time to review the judgement in detail’. Hopefully they will see reason. But don’t hold your breath.

The desire of these hypocritical social liberals for ‘liberation’ has evolved into an unreasoned and partisan identity-based intolerance leveraging ‘protected characteristics’ as a form of attack that is now hurting people physically and emotionally, while stifling freedom of speech. The victims of this intolerance are not just Christians, but anyone this bloc regards as holding a dissident opinion, such as those who might occasionally make love with someone from the opposite sex who attracts them.

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Paul T Horgan
Paul T Horgan
Paul T Horgan worked in the IT Sector. He lives in Berkshire.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.