One of the email newsletters I receive is from the Witherspoon Institute’s “Public Discourse,” and often link to and/or excerpt articles posted at their website. Recently there has been a number of articles touching on “identity politics.” In this post and in the next I will link to and excerpt from a few of the the articles.

First up is from Professor Anthony Esolen.

Pronouns, Ordinary People, and the War over Reality
Do not dismiss the pronominal wars as nonsense or assume that its warriors are merely daft.

It cannot possibly be to any living thing’s advantage to be confused about male and female. As it is, sex is far more strongly marked upon the human body than it is upon the bodies of dogs or cats or horses or many of the species of birds. A man’s face is not like a woman’s face. … A man’s shoulders do not look like a woman’s shoulders, and a woman’s hips do not look like a man’s hips. Men and women differ down to their very hair, as anyone can perceive who looks at a woman’s smooth chin or a man’s bald pate.

Ordinary and healthy people love that it is so,” Esolen writes. And:

The sexual revolution always has been a war waged against the ordinary family, against the ordinary ways of men and women and children. The moral law as regards sex is meant to protect that family from threats without and within: from the pseudo-marriage that is fornication, from the betrayal of marriage that is adultery, from the rickets and scurvy of impure habits, and from the mockery of the marital act that is sodomy.

And yes, Professor Esolen doesn’t pull his punches.

Our next article is by R.J. Snell — note the subtitle!

Swastikas and Safety Pins: The Grim Heritage of Identity Politics
A war of every group against every other is the sine qua non of identity politics. The peacefulness of classical liberalism is rejected root and branch, for war is the goal.

In it, Snell links to several articles, one of which includes a word I’ve never seen before: “identitarian.”

There is only space here to highlight a couple of things. Note this paragraph:

Without the discipline of party politics, social movements devolve into mere feeling, especially in our age of expressive individualism. People march and feel good and think they have accomplished something. They have a social experience with a lot of people and fool themselves into thinking they are members of a coherent and demanding community. Such movements descend to the language of mass therapy.

And this:

The definition of America is up for grabs. Our fundamental institutions have been exposed as shockingly hollow. But the marches couldn’t escape the language and tropes of identity politics.

I always recommend reading the entire articles I excerpt.

Now to our paraphilia — the poor little mostly-ignored “B” from the identity politics pioneers at “LGBT”:

Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior toward both males and females. The term is mainly used in the context of human attraction to denote romantic or sexual feelings toward both men and women. It may also be defined as encompassing romantic or sexual attraction to people of all gender identities or to a person irrespective of that person’s biological sex or gender, which is sometimes termed pansexuality.

Got it? Are you sure? Want to read that again just to make sure? Are you ready to be quizzed, for example, on the “all gender identities” part?

If you’ve really got it, then let’s get to our closing question: How will society respond to a future well-funded marriage “equality” effort for those in bi-sexual relationships?

Up next: More from Public Discourse.

Articles in this series, from oldest to newest:

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Introducing a Series

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Incest

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Body Integrity Identity Disorder

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Impact & Transgenders

Transgenderism a Choice or Disorder?

Why the Term “Sexual Orientation” is Nonsense

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Man’s Search for Meaning

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: LGBT Is Not a Color & Fetishism

The recent “March for Women” in Washington, D.C., might have been  a bit vague in its goal, but it sure was vulgar its execution. It also provided nice fodder for this series on identity politics.

This is from the Free Beacon — not The Onion. Really. I’m not kidding. Here is the title and subtitle of a post from freebeacon.com:

Transgender Activists Upset Over ‘White Cis Women March’
Women’s march ‘dangerous space’ with ‘oppressive message’ that ‘having a vagina is essential to womanhood’

If you’re keeping score, here’s the basic substance:

Transgender activists are upset that the women’s march over the weekend was not inclusive to biological men who identify as women, as the protest presented an “oppressive message” that having a “vagina is essential to womanhood.”

Saturday’s event to oppose the inauguration of Donald Trump was largely a “white cis women march,” with too many pictures of female reproductive organs and pink hats, according to trans women and “nonbinary” individuals interviewed by Mic.com.

A fight is brewing between “trans-exclusionary radical feminists,” or “TERFs,” and transwomen, according to the article, “How the Women’s March’s ‘genital-based’ feminism isolated the transgender community.”

The women’s march had an over-reliance on slogans and posters depicting gender norms, like using pink to represent women and girls, said some transgender activists who boycotted the march.

Okee dokee. You can confirm that this isn’t from The Onion by clicking here. Here is just one more excerpt from someone offended by the event:

‘I believe there’s a lot of inequality that has to do with genitals—that’s not something you can separate from the feminist movement,’ the transwoman added. ‘But I feel like I’ve tried to get involved in feminism and there’s always been a blockade there for trans women.’

On the topic of “misguided” “genital-based womanhood” that was espoused by the women’s march, let us quickly move to our paraphilia of the day: Autoandrophilia. First you need to know that for the sake of time I will occasionally include similar paraphilias — in this case, the connecting theme is the need for a terrific imagination. For the sake of space, I’m going to post the abbreviated definitions — you can follow the individual links to learn more. Since I have no idea what the proper listing order should be, let’s just go with, uh, ladies first:

Autoandrophilia: A biological female imagining herself as a male

Autogynephilia: A biological man imagining himself as a female

Autonepiophilia: The image of one’s self in the form of an infant.

Autopedophilia: The image of one’s self in the form of a child.

Autozoophilia: The image of one’s self in the form of an animal or anthropomorphized animal.

I hope our readers won’t mind the abbreviated label “auto*philia” representing all of the above.

Let’s close with a question: Will wannabe auto*philia-loving journalists form professional journalism associations (such as this one) to monitor and exploit the Fourth Estate in the service of breaking down barriers and normalizing auto*philia?

Here’s another question: if America is to be truly free, shouldn’t all sexcentric-identified individuals be treated equally under the law?

Lastly, here is related short interview by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson — here’s the headline and lead-in:

Obama’s transgender bathroom mandate and strange bedfellows

One Christian organization and a radical feminist group are the most unlikely tag team partners in a challenge to former president’s transgender bathroom order.

Image credit: www.webneel.com.

Articles in this series, from oldest to newest:

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Introducing a Series

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Incest

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Body Integrity Identity Disorder

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Impact & Transgenders

Transgenderism a Choice or Disorder?

Why the Term “Sexual Orientation” is Nonsense

Identity Politics and Paraphilias: Man’s Search for Meaning

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

Three and a half years ago in an article titled “Frightening The Horses,” writer and editor Rod Dreher opens giving a fellow writer kudos. “Ben Domenech calls it,” Dreher notes, and then excerpts him:

I think they have really been arguing against the rise of something which has a much larger impact than just a small number of homosexuals getting married — they have instead been arguing against the modern concept of sexual identity. And this is a much tougher task, considering how ingrained this concept has become in our lives.

During the sexual revolution, we crossed a line from sex being something you do to defining who you are. When it enters into that territory, we move beyond the possibility of having a society in which sex acts were tolerated, in the Mrs. Patrick Campbell sense — “I don’t care what they do, so long as they don’t do it in the street and frighten the horses” — and one where it is insufficient to be anything but a cheerleader for sexual persuasion of all manner and type, because to be any less so is to hate the person themselves. Sex stopped being an aspect of a person, and became their lodestar — in much the same way religion is for others.

After commenting on that, Dreher goes back to Domenech again:

So the real issue here is not about gay marriage at all, but the sexual revolution’s consequences, witnessed in the shift toward prioritization of sexual identity, and the concurrent rise of the nones and the decline of the traditional family. The real reason Obama’s freedom to worship limitation can take hold is that we are now a country where the average person prioritizes sex far more than religion.

. . .

In a nation where fewer people truly practice religion, fewer people external to those communities will see any practical reason to protect the liberty of those who do.

I highly recommend Rod Dreher’s entire article, where he weaves together several more excerpts from others, including the late Justice Antinon Scalia. Ben Domenech’s article The Future of Religious Liberty is also worth your time. Their point — that opening the door to mandated acceptance of everyone’s choice of identity has serious negative consequences.

Let’s turn to our next identity. A few years ago the Illinois Family Institute’s Laurie Higgins wrote an article titled, “Whole: A New Documentary on a Troubling Disorder.” Here is the opening:

The new documentary Whole, which recently premiered at the Los Angeles Film Festival, explores the troubling topic of Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID). This disorder, which I have mentioned in several articles, used to be called apotemnophilia.

Those who suffer from BIID identify with amputees and seek to have their bodies align with their psychological identity. That is to say, they seek to have healthy limbs amputated. Many of those who suffer from BIID (known colloquially as “amputee wannabes”) recount feeling these desires from a very young age. Some have accomplished their goal through self-mutilation, and at least two have been facilitated in their quest by a doctor in Scotland.

Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia page (emphasis added):

Body integrity identity disorder (BIID, also referred to as amputee identity disorder) is a psychological disorder wherein sufferers feel they would be happier living as an amputee…

BIID is typically accompanied by the desire to amputate one or more healthy limbs to achieve that end. BIID can be associated with apotemnophilia, sexual arousal based on the image of one’s self as an amputee.

So, next on our list of basic and important questions: How will society respond to “After the Ball” type efforts to normalize BIID, remove it from the DSM’s (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) list of mental disorders, and demonize those who disapprove of it?

It is their identity, after all, and you shouldn’t be a bigot.

Up next: Transgenderism.

Mike Miller at the Independent Journal Review posted a Tweet from Fox News’ Brit Hume about the University of Kansas Gender “pronoun buttons” — Hume Tweeted, “Is there no end to this foolishness?”

What foolishness? Miller reports that “Signs in the university’s various libraries explain the purpose of the buttons”:

Because gender is, itself, fluid and up to the individual. Each person has the right to identify their own pronouns, and we encourage you to ask before assuming someone’s gender. Pronouns matter!

Misgendering someone can have lasting consequences, and using the incorrect pronoun can be hurtful, disrespectful, and invalidate someone’s identity.

Misgendering. That’s a first for me — I hadn’t heard that word before. My vocabulary has expanded a lot in recent years.

More and more of the people who considered themselves “enlightened” and “open minded” about the LGBT “agenda” (Brit Hume might even be one of them) are now being pushed to their tolerance limits by the growing list of “identities” that we are all supposed to not discriminate against.

I wonder if Hume has bumped into the list of paraphilias. There is a short list and a longer list. I have not been able to find the entire 549 yet but I will keep looking.

When it comes to “identity politics,” as I noted last time, the list of possibilities are endless. The most common ones are race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, and the bogus “sexual orientation” (more on that in a later post). In recent years, the letters following LGBT have begun to come out of the closet, and as noted above, the group wanting to expand the list of “genders,” such as at the University of Kansas — represent even more letters!

Two years ago when I discussed this series of articles with the Illinois Family Institute’s Laurie Higgins, she had this to say:

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.

In this effort to lay out the range of possibilities in identity politics, let us turn to our first paraphilia: incest.

Wikipedia deserves much of the criticism it receives from political conservatives, but I like to refer to it when useful. Here is an excerpt from their page on incest:

Incest is sexual activity between family members or close relatives. This typically includes sexual activity between people in a consanguineous relationship (blood relations), and sometimes those related by affinity, such as individuals of the same household, step relatives, those related by adoption or marriage, or members of the same clan or lineage.

The incest taboo is and has been one of the most widespread of all cultural taboos, both in present and in many past societies. Most modern societies have laws regarding incest or social restrictions on closely consanguineous marriages. In societies where it is illegal, consensual adult incest is seen by some as a victimless crime.

This series will ask a lot of questions — here is our first: How will society respond when those who practice incest start self-identifying as such and begin clamoring for their “rights”?

Up next: Frightening the horses.

Identity Politics gets a lot of press — both conservative and liberal. The topic permeates nearly every area of life in the America of today. Yet for all the attention, not nearly enough people understand the most basic aspect of the conservation.

The advance of so-called “gay rights” and normalization of the lifestyles of the LGBTers has made huge (what its supporters call) “advances.” Supporters of Judeo-Christian morality call it, simply, a return to paganism. More on that (paganism) as the series unfolds.

It is my contention that identity politics is childish and succeeds only when thinking people decide to accept faulty premises. If that doesn’t sound “intellectual” to you, think for a bit about how common sense often sounds: common. My goal with these articles is to take a look at just how many potential “identities” are possible. That survey, I believe, cries for common sense to finally become a bigger part of this national discussion.

I’m a white guy — yes, one of those — but I’m no WASP. I’m not a member of the elite or the establishment. I wasn’t born into money. I have worked many blue collar and white collar jobs, both in the private and public and political sectors. My bio on my website reads simply: I am a Christian, an American citizen, and I work in the arena of applied political science.

So let’s list what I am (some of my “identities”):

• I am biologically a male.
• I am of white European extraction.
• I am a Christian.
• I am an American citizen.
• I am a heterosexual.
• I am both a social and economic conservative (I realize those are general headings).
• I guess in the age of ageism I should note I am well into middle age.
• I am a student of the Bible, of history, and a nominal sports fan (though you should know I swing both ways — I’m both a Cubs and Sox fan, a Bears and Packers fan…and yes, that’s possible).

No doubt there are other categories I fit into, but that’s enough for now. To be honest, though, I’ve never thought in terms of my “identities.” For all of my life they have been a side issue to what I am at my core: I am a human being with God-given rights — and I happen to believe in that very same God.

But let’s say you meet someone who is a man but wants to be identified as a woman? Or a white girl who wants to be identified as a black girl? Let’s say you meet someone who claims to be the person that was the inspiration of the Jason Bourne character from the novels and movies. That’s how they self-identify. It’s deep in their soul. It’s how they see themselves. What if I have severe doubts about the legitimacy of their claims? Am I a hateful intolerant bigot for not buying it?

The list of identities of all sorts is actually endless. Obviously not all “identities” involve sexual arousal, but since we have so many of them to cover, most of my focus will be on the paraphilias.

For the record, I look to those I consider the well-versed or even experts on the topic of identity politics, which includes the LGBT issue. The substance of this series will depend primarily on the words of others.

Back in 2014 I penned a series called “The Paraphilia of the Day,” which ran on BarbWire.com and my own website. What is a “paraphilia”? This intro to the Wikipedia page on the topic is good enough:

Paraphilia (also known as sexual perversion and sexual deviation) is the experience of intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, fetishes, situations, fantasies, behaviors, or individuals. No consensus has been found for any precise border between unusual sexual interests 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 (ICD).

The number and taxonomy of paraphilias is under debate; one source lists as many as 549 types of paraphilias. The DSM-5 has specific listings for eight paraphilic disorders. 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.

By the way, when I first cited that page, there were 547 types of paraphilias.

Too few Americans actually talk about what we’re really talking about when the subject of the “LGBT community”/identity politics comes up. LGBT represents only four letters — thus, 4 identities.

For the past couple of years the “T” in LGBT has been getting a lot of attention. A biological male can become a female, don’t ya know. Well, that’s not the worst of it. Get ready because a lot of letters follow that “T.”

You have probably seen a Q added on, or a Q, I, and A as well. From what I can gather, there is currently a great debate over which letters should be officially added next — and what those letters should stand for. Here are just a couple of variants currently discussed:

LGBTTQQIAAP
LGBTQQIP2SAA
LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM

I kid you not.

Up next: Wading into the alphabet soup of paraphilia identities.