I recently briefly interacted with Australian know-it-all-holier-than-though-gay Josh Zepps when he deigned to pardon JK for her thought crimes (a pardon I know she was dying to receive and can now surely sigh in relief).
Afterward, I rambled a path of thought regarding the decay and inversion of the LGB and women's movements. First, I considered Stonewall's sordid, retconned history (everyone who mattered is black and trans now). Then, I arranged a list of but a few of the misogynistic cheerleaders whose pop-culture advocacy, or simple apathy, hastened the decline of LGB and women's movements—eroding the noble foundation of their ideals.
Let's understand and hopefully agree that gay culture, which relates exclusively to men who have sex with men and not whatever insinuations regarding manginas that Reddit might posit, can be a den of testosterone, male aggression, and sexual ideation. A realm as carnal and ripe with ball sweat as TRA symposium on Sailor Moon. Sure, the fatherly and brother aspects of male-to-male companionship exist and can be found within the community. But, so, too, must we acknowledge the permeating disregard for women, their anatomy and their function in society. "Eww, pussies are gross." "Don't be a dumb bitch." "I'm a bimbo slut." "Stop leaving snail trails." "Tuck your meat flaps away." I've heard—and possibly said in naive, younger moments—each and every one of these slurs.
Indeed the slandering of women and the use of their bodies for punchlines aren't new. This seemingly acceptable, banal derogation has existed since the days of transvestites playing theatre and housewives in Victorian brothels or earlier. Ru Paul, his empire and his "flaming pussy" represent the refinement of this bigotry. That a man can dress up like a woman, degrade a woman through word, action and belief, and still be seen as powerful and distant from his remarks (perhaps because we collectively understand he remains a man) reveals society's ugly introspection.
Dylan Mulvaney—a once failed male entertainer—is the latest gay man to catch on to the trend of exploiting the physicality and cosmetic stereotypes of a woman for clout and fortune. But Dylan did not climb this pedestal by the tenacity of his acrylic nails alone. No, he was hoisted there by the medical industrial complex and, most affrontingly, by affluent gay men like Zepps, to whom women remain punchlines or, at best, necessary means to acquiring wombs for their fetishistic, designer babies.
As I have often argued, class is the one and true divide between the powerless and the powerful. Classism operates outside the regions of moral good and ethics. Behaviours of the Laurentian gays can easily be likened to hyper-masculine aggression—the need to conquer and oppress. But in this case, gay classism manifests not just through womanface but also in the presumption of gay men who believe it is their sacred right to bear young.
If we accept the "naturality" of gayness, that it's programmed into our DNA—gay polar bears and penguins, for example—then we must accept the biological imperative that gay men should not bear children. What about couples who can't have children? That doesn't change the fact that heterosexual couples, regardless of the functioning of their parts, are XY + XX; their DNA compels a man and a woman to procreate. Whether they submit to that compulsion is another matter. XY + XY or XX + XX would not or should not have a similar compulsion. In this case, you could suggest a social cause for the need for gay men to "nest," though, from the examples I'm using today, that cause seems to be vanity (I will prove this shortly). Relatedly, you could also indicate a biological impulse regarding XX + XX pairings, as women do, scientifically, begin to nest and experience biochemical changes in preparation for childbearing. Do men not have fatherly urges, though? Of course, though their biological imperative is to sow their seed far and wide—gay culture is a testament to this.
Regardless, Josh, Pete Buttigieg, Anderson Cooper, and a cadre of wealthy homosexuals defy their internal ideology and make a most unnatural choice: pretending to bear young. Pete even posed with his partner after taking their babies from their surrogate, as if one had just completed a sweaty, straining labour. That's the grotesque theatre we're forced to watch.
“Good job pushing that out your bung-hole, babe.”
Worse, and proof of their vainglory, there's a world of abandoned, pre-existing children wanting homes. Perhaps I wouldn't criticize so harshly, I could soften to an argument of men given to general philanthropic caregiving if these wealthy gays adopted orphans, though we know how malfeasant adoptions, gay or otherwise, can become. But that's not what Josh and co. desire because the child-decoration wouldn't be theirs, not of their seed and hereditary inheritance. Laurentian gays suffer from transhumanist delusions. They are as corrupt and misguided as the elites from whom they draw their admiration and support.
And that's all I have to say on the matter. Be gay. Find a husband or two, whatever you decide—that's the benefit of unconventional sexuality. Be proud. Be loud. But not around children still finding their way in a sex-and-media-saturated world. Primarily, be wary of the pitfalls of the purity of your beliefs in thinking that your gayness hath risen ye above the base mortal hatreds and impulses you find so easy to discern—or apply—to others. You are still men in every way that men can be men. Harvesting the wombs of comatose women or swapping their wombs into transsexual men to fulfil fantasies of motherhood does not an ally, but does a Jack the Ripper, make.
If you want to know what women want and how to support them, the overwhelming sentiment seems to leave them and their spaces alone. Gays have enough of a mess to manage in our community, with gay grandpa groomers like George Takei normalizing pedophilia and "getting confused" that grabbing a man's genitals constitutes sexual assault. These are the people who speak for the gay community. And it's high time they sat down before they ruin what remains. Because if we don't clean up the disaster of our messaging and develop some fraternity and chivalry—yes, gay men can embody those qualities, too—then the majority will correct our wanton behaviour for us.
And it will be with a far sterner hand than if we do so ourselves.
—C
Edit: typos from writing in an impassioned frenzy.