No, you don’t get it.

In the recent weeks, here in the neck of woods, transgender issues have received national spotlight as a result of one person’s struggle for sex change. In today’s paper, a columnist writes

So it makes sense to oppose the LGBTI agenda, not because we hate the individuals espousing it before us, but because we love the families we are protecting behind us.

which is an appeal to intolerance towards others based on claims written in an old goat herders narrative. He writes elsewhere

The moment we ignore the biblical admonition, “male and female he created them”, together with its genetic, anatomical, psychological, spiritual and societal manifestations

It is evident here, that his objections are based on his religion. He appeals to a slippery slope that is simply non existent. He writes

then nothing is left to halt the slippery slope that compels us all to ignore sexual differences in any personal or social reality.

There is no slippery slope. Allowing the LGBT to live their lives and at the same time enjoy the same protections from government as heterosexual couples get doesn’t threaten your job, your work or your family.

The author of the article, though appearing to be well read, appears to me to have missed the points in some of the works he claims to have read. Take the case of Plato’s republic. In this philosophical discourse, Plato presents the ideal state. It is utopian only to the extent that such an ideal does not exist but it doesn’t mean that members of our race can’t aspire to such a state. Unless our author has a problem with aspiring to ideals, I don’t see how Plato fits in with his bigotry.

In 1984, Orwell tells the story of a state where big brother monitors your every movement and where your neighbor can spy on you. Dissent isn’t allowed. There isn’t room for individual expression or even free thought. Whereas, the world has not gone to this level, it appears that it is not far off  what with reports of governments monitoring private communication?

Related articles

The end result of dystopian rights is mass suicide. It makes sense to oppose their agenda to protect life now and in future

Don’t be a pussy, ditch the qualifiers

How search for true self drove Audrey Mbugua to suicide bid

How minister cut short Audrey Mbugua’s dream of fully becoming a woman

Audrey Mbugua takes transgender case to Medical Board

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

17 thoughts on “No, you don’t get it.

  1. Jackie says:

    According to Bruce Bagemihl (author of Biological Exuberance), homosexuality has been documented in more than 450 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, insects, and other animals worldwide. It makes no sense whatsoever to think that we are somehow different from those in the animal kingdom. I wonder – did it ever occur to any of these holy people that same-sex coupling might be an important part of God’s plan? No, of course not! Too many people stuck on stupid.


    • makagutu says:

      I don’t think such people read beyond what their pastor has told them. And yes, too many people are stuck on stupid, they don’t see beyond their noses


  2. themodernidiot says:

    What a douchenozzle. He’s probably gay lol.
    Thanks for the name-drop my friend 🙂

    Now, this is bothering me,
    “The moment we ignore the biblical admonition, “male and female he created them”, together with its genetic, anatomical, psychological, spiritual and societal manifestations”

    To use his argument, we have to first assume that his god knew what it was doing, and we are all here because god makes it so. None of us are accidents, god touches his finger to every human birth intentionally. He creates our genetics, anatomy, psyches, and spirits exactly the way he wants them to be. Not my fault I’m queer, take it up with your god.

    The societal manifestations thing is stupid if the author is focusing on adam and eve. two ignorant twats do not a society make.

    But the author seems to want to hang out in eden, and use “male and female he created them” as some sort of proof that people were created straight. sorry, this statement of creation doesn’t rule out biology. just as we cannot assume they were gay, or bi, we can’t read into it that adam and eve were exclusively straight either. they were just the only people at the party. “love the one you’re with,” as they say.

    But, we have to acknowledge that the bible doesn’t say they were created without any homosexual feelings. in fact we can assume they were with all that Old Testament same-sex buggery going on. Poor old Lot just about got ripped to pieces in the very first book of the bible. The very first! That didn’t take very long, did it?

    Something tells me every attraction was possible from the creation of life as a sort of population control.

    We aren’t gay, straight, short, tall, fast runner, or lazy because god tweaked each recipe, he made it so we’d be diverse to ensure our chances of survival. in animals one can see the devastating effects of inbreeding. why would god want his superstar humans to die out so fast? again, if you think he blew it, then you have to admit your god’s an idiot. go ahead, i’ll wait…

    the reproductive process requires a mix of different things, so obviously god made two different things to perpetuate the species. the bible does not say that they did not enjoy sex with their own species. you can perpetuate the species all you want, and you can sleep with your same sex, or you can fondle trees if that is what floats your boat. reproductive science does not a moral make.

    returning to the the premise of the author’s argument, it is about creation. and this ends his argument before it starts. once he claims god made all, then he can have nothing to say against it. if I’m here, and I’m queer, then he has to admit his god did that. He doesn’t get to just ignore the part of life his god made because they make him (the author) uncomfortable. either his god made it all, in which case everything is godly and good; or god did not make it, which means that diversity is just nature.

    Saying I am something bad because of what god gave me implies his god made a huge mistake. Saying that it is man’s job to sort this all out is claiming that his god is dumber than man.


    • makagutu says:

      I think the author hasn’t really given that statement any thought. By saying he made them and female, even granting for purposes of argument that happened, it doesn’t tell you the nature of what he created. Who knows, maybe Eve had no feelings for Adam besides these were the most ignorant twats in all of human history. If anyone thinks being gay is contra the law of god and also believe that their god created everything, then all we can say is that it is an acute case of cognitive dissonance.

      His argument doesn’t even start to crawl unless he can show there was a first couple and a creator god. We don’t have even to respond to his other claims until he can provide evidence to support the premise on which his arguments are based.

      No prohibition is given in advance of an offence. You don’t make laws against computer fraud before you have computers and wire transfers so if god has issues with homosexuality, it only means he didn’t see it coming and only gave the admonition after the fact and therefore those who take the bible as their rule book ought to square this with god and no one else. And in the meantime they should STFU.


  3. archaeopteryx1 says:

    Though written in 1968, Gore Vidal’s book, Myra Breckinridge might give you additional insight into the issue – at worst, it’s entertaining reading.



    • makagutu says:

      Thanks for the recommendation. I will definitely read the book


      • fojap says:

        One of my favorites. I’ve written about it a couple of times. Extraordinarily funny about gender roles. It was a major influence on my ideas about sexuality and gender roles. My only caveat is that Myra is hardly typical, so it probably doesn’t give as much insight into transsexualism as transsexualism is used to reveal things about mainstream society, and to a lesser extent about gay male society.

        Entertaining is putting it mildly.


  4. aguywithoutboxers says:

    As always, an very good argument, my Kenyan friend! With all the serious social problems and environmental issues that we face as a global community, government needs to get itself out of the bedrooms of people and focus on solving the most pressing concerns that impact us all. Much love and naked hugs!


  5. fojap says:

    I read the essay at the first link, and I’m not even sure where I would start criticizing it. Perhaps at the assertion that G.K. Chesterton is a “modern” thinker. The following statements are not much more comprehensible. I’ve read The Republic, several times. As it happens, Plato’s ideal society is not mine. Of course that’s the whole point of the Dystopian novel. It takes a Utopian ideal shows how, when taken to its logical conclusions, it doesn’t work.

    I wouldn’t consider the Garden of Eden truly a Utopia since it doesn’t represent anything vaguely resembling a realistic society. True, Plato’s Republic is an ideal. However, the Garden of Eden is not an ideal for Christians in the same way. Christians are not saying, “Stop working, take your clothes off and try to pretend you don’t know the difference between good and evil, so we can be more like Adam and Eve in the Garden.” Likewise, the fall isn’t dystopian. A dystopian fall would be that Adam and Eve are so innocent and childlike that they suffer directly as a cause of their ignorance of the world in which they live.

    I’m not sure why he brings up inter-sex people because that undermines his notion about the strict separation of genders more than anything. “The utopian/dystopian approach can expose the apparent promise and grave danger of the LGBTI movement, not just the lesbians and gays, but also the bisexual, transgender and intersex component, which targets the notion of stable sexual identity.” It would be like blaming albinos for the people who think that race is a social construct. (Admittedly, I’m one of those people, but that’s because there’s no good, consistent, scientific definition of race, not because of albinos, although there were a couple in my high school.) The fact that the writer lumps bisexuals with trans-people and inter-sex people as challenging gender identity, rather than sexual orientation, makes me wonder if he even has a clue what he’s talking about. Has he bothered to learn about the people he’s criticizing? I could also direct him to the blog of an inter-sex person who hates trans-people. Not that I agree with here; it’s a very hateful blog and I only came across it accidentally.

    Next Kanjama writes:
    “Luckily we don’t need dystopian literature to explore the future of a transgendered society. We can simply observe what’s happening in the American State of Massachusetts. Adam MacLeod, writing recently in The Witherspoon Institute’s Public Discourse, explains the endgame of transgendered society in his article, “Sky Fall: Gender Ideology comes to the Schoolhouse.””

    Whew. I’m not even sure where to start here. What is the Witherspoon Institute? Despite the fact that it is located in the state where I was born and raised, I’ve never heard of it. According to Wikipedia:
    “The Witherspoon Institute is a conservative think tank in Princeton, New Jersey. Founded on religious principles, the group is opposed to same-sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research, and abortion.” They apparently supply questionable academic research to conservative politicians. (The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and this is what the rich choose to do with their money.)

    As an American, it does sadden me a bit to see this kind of propaganda spreading from here to other countries. It’s a good thing Kanjama is familiar with Plato, because perhaps he will realize that articles like the ones he cites aren’t reality, but shadows projected on the wall. Worse than shadows, in fact, since the sun doesn’t have a political agenda.

    The title of the article, “Sky Fall,” is in reference to the fact that, regarding same-sex marriage, people who support it will say, “Look at Massachusetts. The sky isn’t falling.” Actually, I would still say that. The article doesn’t really do much to contradict the notion that the sky won’t fall if gays marry. “We can simply observe what’s happening in the American State of Massachusetts.” Please do, and not only through the eyes of people who do research for a conservative think tank with a religious agenda. “Sky Fall” says nothing at all about the rights of a responsible adult to get a sex change operation or to take hormones. The argument in that article is as follows:
    1. We predict that long term negative effects will result from same-sex marriages.
    2. Allowing same-sex marriage is removing sexual difference from marriage laws. This occurred in Massachusetts in 2003.
    3. Same-sex marriage laws are the first step in a larger trend to remove sexual differences in laws.
    4. This resulted in 2011, in a statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity.
    5. Schools must eliminate gender distinction in clothing worn at graduation ceremonies (We all wore the same cap and gown, so I don’t know what that’s about.), physical education (see title ix, enacted by the federal government in 1972), and, the grand horror, bathrooms. (Will somebody please tell me why conservatives are obsessed with shit? Bathrooms won’t be a good place for closeted conservatives to cruise?)
    6. Refusing to call a student by the name of his or her choice can be considered bullying.
    7. “While we doubt that teenage boys will take much interest in the provenance of gender personality, it’s not a stretch to suppose that they will welcome its implications for co-ed activity.” I don’t even know what that is supposed to mean. I went to a co-ed school, so did my parents. Hell, my grandmother went to a co-ed school. It’s when we get to my great-great-grandmother I’m no longer sure. Exactly how far do conservatives want to roll back the clock?
    8. “Massachusetts lawmakers have for many years been eradicating sexual distinctions from the law. This result seems to us the logical consequence of those efforts.” Yes, they took away a sexual distinction when they gave women the vote. Like I said, how far backwards are we going? In a way, I suppose, he does have a point. They have been slowly, over decades, changing laws to make them more equal in the matter of gender. They changed the statutory rape laws when I was in school to make them gender neutral.
    9. A federal court required the Department of Corrections in Massachusetts to pay for a sex change operation for an inmate. What does this have to do with anything? Who knows, but since no one likes murderers, this is bound to bring up negative feelings.
    10. “If you think male and female are two distinct sexes determined by your anatomy at birth, then don’t bother serving as an expert witness in the United States District Court in Massachusetts. Nor can you in good conscience send your children to public school in the Commonwealth.” Exactly how are these two statements linked? Spite? Must be, because Massachusetts only has one of the best public school systems in the country. You’d be far better of heading to a bastion of religious bigotry and sending your kids to one of those bogus “charter schools” that use textbooks the push garbage like creationism.

    The states here have very different cultures. People say that we’re in the middle of a culture war, and in some ways we are. I usually bite my tongue because I know some of my southern friends, many of whom are progressive and broadminded, hate stereotypes about the south. You can start a really bad flame war on a progressive political site that way. Still, if anyone wants to point out Massachusetts as a negative result of progressive policies, I suggest you have them try a little thought experiment. They have just gotten incredibly lucky and have been offered a once in a lifetime chance at their dream job. Only one hitch – they have to move to the U.S. and they can’t choose New York City or L.A. In fact, they can’t choose the exact town, only the state. Which do they pick? Give them time to research it. Maybe they won’t pick Massachusetts, but I bet it will get more consideration than Alabama or Mississippi.

    Why are our less religious states more prosperous than our more religious ones? So, no, the sky hasn’t fallen in Massachusetts. In fact, I’d say its one of our nicer states. My family used to go to the beach there every summer because my uncle had a house in a pretty little town called Wellfleet.

    Due to political propaganda, it’s hard to find a good ranking of states in education. This one is based primarily on test scores and therefore a bit less biased than some others.
    Some people will, annoyingly, throw race into the equation, but I currently live in Maryland, one of the states with a high African American population and on that list we do much better than many states that have a higher percentage of whites. (Oh, yes, we have marriage equality here, too. It’s dark out right now, so I’ll have to wait for dawn to tell you if the sky’s still there.)

    There I go, being totally verbose yet again.


    • makagutu says:

      You, my friend, need not have fear of being verbose, this is all very good and quite informative both for me and I know for anyone who will read your response.

      And I guess the sky didn’t fall while you slept 😛


  6. Eric Alagan says:

    What two consenting adults do in their bedroom is their business – full stop!


We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s