Why is Obama discriminating against other paraphilias? The above headline is what we should have read instead of this one: Obama Signs Executive Orders Protecting LGBT Feds and Contractors. This is ugly discrimination from the highest office in the land.
Here is the opening of the article posted at GovExec.com:
President Obama on Monday signed two executive orders to protect gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender federal contractors and employees from workplace discrimination.
Everyone knows the “LGBT” list of letters is getting longer all the time. Google this one for a recent example: “LGBTQQIAAP.” Chances are it will be a long time before that “community” officially ends the expansion of the acronym. Your guess is as good as mine whether the number of letters will reach into the 540s (see the Wikipedia definition below).
It’s time for a review. This series is aimed at clearing up the misunderstanding about the nature of homosexuality. One way to clear up the confusion is to get beyond the narrow focus on the “LGBT community” (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered) and add into the discussion other “paraphilias.” The following is from our introduction to this series:
Let’s define paraphilia. Wikipedia’s page will suffice:
Paraphilia (from Greek παρά para “beside” and -philia φιλία “friendship, love”) is the experience of intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, situations, or individuals. Paraphilic behavior (such as pedophilia, zoophilia, sexual sadism, and exhibitionism) may be illegal in some jurisdictions, but may also be tolerated. No consensus has been found for any precise border between unusual personal sexual tastes and paraphilic ones. There is debate over which, if any, of the paraphilias should be listed in diagnostic manuals, such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases.
The number and taxonomy of paraphilias is under debate; one source lists as many as 549 paraphilias. Several sub-classifications of the paraphilias have been proposed, and some argue that a fully dimensional, spectrum or complaint-oriented approach would better reflect the evidence.
Yes, you read that right. In fact, you might want to read it again. Note: “atypical objects, situations, or individuals.” Note also the debate over the number of paraphilias. By beginning to address all of the other ways “friendship” and “love” manifest, more people will be able to see the debate over so-called “gay rights” in the proper context.
When proposing this series I exchanged emails with a number of people, including BarbWire contributor Laurie Higgins, who said this:
To your question about whether we should iterate and reiterate what distinguishes natural sex between men and women from perversity in all its protean forms, I say, absolutely. As often as the Left says homoeroticism is akin to skin color, we have to say, no, it’s akin to paraphilias, incest, and polyamory.
Here are a few key articles providing more background:
Here is another important passage from our introductory article:
On the one hand we have nature’s design and intent. On the other is everything else. It’s time for a clearer understanding about how as a society we’re going to handle the “everything else.” Readers might wonder if I’m comparing the more extreme paraphilias with male or female homoeroticism. The answer is no. I’m not comparing them. The American Psychological Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) lists them together.
If we’re going to be continually subjected to a debate over, for example, the “rights” of men who center their identity on their homoerotic desires, then it’s reasonable to begin a discussion over the many other manifestations of perverse sexual desires listed in the DSM or elsewhere.
As noted above, the “everything else” category includes hundreds of paraphilias. The case that those represented by the letters LGBT(etc.) are somehow superior than the rest is impossible to make. To do so would be gross bigotry, anyway, according to the confused standard of the day.
Here is more from that govexec.com article:
The first order expands upon a memorandum issued by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965 that prohibited federal contractors from discriminating “against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin,” to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
First, as BarbWire has made clear, the term “sexual orientation” is nonsense. BarbWire has also addressed the idea of “gender identity” often as well. On the former, no one has yet to successfully make the case that there are fewer “sexual orientations” than there are paraphilias. Second, let me say, I’m personally grateful for the political left for pushing this “transgendered” idea since it’s clearly a bridge too far. People can get confused all they want about how they “feel,” but biological sex is determined by chromosomes. Yes, there are chromosomal birth defects — and they are called that for a reason.
Here’s more from the GovExec article:
The National Treasury Employees Union said it supported the measures, as it represented a step forward in making the federal government a “model employer.”
“Every employee should be treated with dignity and respect and deserves a workplace free of discrimination,” said NTEU president Colleen Kelley.
A May report from the Merit Systems Protection Board found gay federal employees will not be fully safeguarded under federal statute until Congress passes legislation guaranteeing their equal protection.
If it’s not equal protection for all paraphilias then it’s not truly equal protection.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.