Saturday, September 5, 2015

The Gaystapo sets its sights on science

Manil Suri at the New York Times:
Why Is Science So Straight?
Many years ago, over lunch at our university cafeteria, I came out as gay to a colleague in the engineering department. “I didn’t realize you were so unconventional,” he said. I tried explaining to him that being gay was innate and had nothing to do with wanting to subvert convention, but he refused to retract his label. Looking back, perhaps he was correct. 
For I had violated an unspoken convention of STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics): the invisibility of its L.G.B.T. members.
After the lavender blitzkrieg on marriage, neighboring territory needs to be conquered. The Gaystapo won't settle for just Czechoslovakia. The scientific profession, populated as it is by university-coddled politically-correct cowards bent over at the public trough, is a juicy next target, for more reasons than the obvious.

This is just what science needs--affirmation of cis-transgender queer empowerment to transgress the social construction of heteronormative pedagogy in the laboratory. Finally science will be liberated from breeder oppression and the LGBTQQIP2SAA community will assume their rightful place at the vanguard of science.

Not too many years ago, scientists with homosexual orientation tried like hell to keep their personal lives out of their professional lives--Alan Turing comes to mind.

Not any more.

I'm actually not so opposed to making the sex of the person you like f*cking a primary criterion of scientific achievement. It would cap decades of moral degeneration in the scientific profession, and subject the largely leftie-politically correct scientific community to the cultural degradation and chaos they have helped to bring to the rest of America.

The only thing I ask of the vanguard tunnel testers is this: please, pleeeeese, invade evolutionary biology first. After all, evolutionary biologists have been peddlin' this cis-heteronormative anti-homo-bi-trans-oppressive "natural selection" for a century, and it's time that queer theory is applied to punctuated equilibrium.

I'd pay money to watch.


  1. Alan Turing was desperate to conceal his sexual orientation because homosexual behaviour was a criminal offence in Britain at the time, punishable by imprisonment. Or chemical castration.

    When he was outed by the police, he committed suicide. A fine reward for being a vital agent in helping the Allies to defeat Hitler.

    Generous of you to tolerate homosexuals. Provided they don't tell anyone.

    1. bach:

      When the Gaystapo invades your lab, a bit of advice: If you drop a test tube, let housekeeping pick it up.

    2. Michael,

      Your usual tasteful comment. I'm retired. I don't work in a lab anymore. Even when I was working, there were a few openly homosexual staff members, and their sexual orientation wasn't a problem, in the same way that the sexual orientation of heterosexuals wasn't a problem.

      There are regulations against harassment in the workplace which cover everyone.

    3. And anyway - it's good to see you have the proper master-servant viewpoint of conservatives. As a liberal, if I drop something, it's my responsibity to pick it up. Leaving a test tube to the cleaners later that day is lazy and results in a hazard to other staff members until it's rectified.

  2. Gaystapo is a term more appropriate for the homosexual pedophile rapists that have been running the Vatican since forever.

    Can you smell the shit of young boys on the hands of your gay priest when he shoves the body of Christ down your throat?

    1. Homosexuality has infiltrated the Catholic church--as the all male mainly ephebophilia crisis makes clear.

  3. So, you want us to return to the times of Alan Turing. When homosexuality was against the law and people had a choice between jail or chemical castration. All because they have no control over what gender they were attracted to. That says more about you and your religion than it does about homosexuality.

    What scares you so much about homosexuals? Do they pose a threat to you, your family, your career? What is it? Or do you just find the idea "icky"?

    But I do like the irony of your example of Alan Turing. You and other anti-evolution/anti science zealots keep blaming Darwin and his theory for Hitler and the holocaust, yet one of the people instrumental in ending the war (Turing) was an abomination in your eye.

    1. What was done to Turing was wrong.

      But the Gaystapo is wrong too, and is much more dangerous to society than the abuses Turing suffered.

      It's becoming clear that there was a reason for the Closet--a reason homosexuality has generally been treated by society as a crime. It is not just a sin--it is a disease of civic order and a threat to human rights.

      I personally like "Don't ask, don't tell". I have no desire to persecute homosexuals--their issues are with God, and they need to be dealt with by compassion and respect, as we all do.

      But the agenda of the homosexual lobby is another matter, just as the Nazi Party was not synonymous with the German people.

      There are many gay people who do not support the brutality of the gaystapo. I have gay friends who do not support it. Andrew Sullivan has written of his abhorrence of the gaystapo's brutality.

      "[about Brendan Eich] it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us."

      The Gaystapo is a totalitarian movement and is a fundamental threat to Christianity and to liberal representative democracy, as the campaigns of personal destruction against people of conscience amply demonstrates.

      And don't assume, Billyboy (assuming you're straight), that you won't be a target. Totalitarianism rules by terror, and repression even of allies is part of the agenda.

    2. [What scares you so much about homosexuals?]

      I have no fear of homosexuals. In case you didn't notice, "Speareshake", I blog under my own name and have repeatedly been the target of efforts to destroy my livelihood. It's anonymous bloggers who show fear.

      I have no personal issue with homosexuals at all. I have friends, family and patients who are gay, and I like and respect them. Some of my patients in gay relationships have better more caring relationships than a lot of my heterosexual patients. I don't judge their personal lives--I got plenty of my own baggage.

      Homosexuality is a sin, but it's not my place to punish or do any 'justice' to people who do it. I pray for God's mercy, for all of us.

      The "gay rights" movement (AKA Gaystapo) is another matter. I don't fear it. If I did, I wouldn't call it out publicly under my own name.

      I hate it. I hate totalitarians. I hate people who destroy the lives of others because of their beliefs. I believe in 'live and let live' over a broad range of issues.

      Gay people should be undisturbed in their private lives. I don't want their sin shoved down my throat, but I have no problem according them the privacy I want for myself.

      But I will not capitulate to gay totalitarians. I will profess my Christian faith openly--everywhere and always. I will not bend a knee to anyone but God.

    3. In a just society, accommodation should be made for religious belief. It is in fact required by the Constitution (Free Exercise), which takes precedence over any imaginary "gay rights" bullshit.

      The proper solution to the Kim Davis issue is to respect her religious conviction, and to refer the gay nuptials to another county clerk who will marry them. That is the proper solution to all of the gay marriage/wedding cake etc crap.

      Respect religious beliefs of others, and get your marriage/cake/photo down the street.

    4. By the way, the notion of fear and "homophobia" is a real canard.

      People who speak out against the gaystapo aren't "phobic"--just the opposite. People who speak out are the ones with balls.

      The 'phobic' folks are the ones who comply with the gaystapo agenda out of fear of retribution.

    5. "The proper solution to the Kim Davis issue is to respect her religious conviction, and to refer the gay nuptials to another county clerk who will marry them."

      Which is exactly what the judge offered her as a compromise. She would never have to issue a SSM license as long as she agreed not to interfere with the deputy clerks issuing them. She refused. So much for your live and let live argument. Not only does she refuse to issue a license to a couple who have a legal, constitutional right to one. She indicates that she will try to prevent others from issuing them.

      With regard to anonymity, I use my name in my email, which you as the blog owner have access to. My name is Kevin Middlebrook.

    6. Her name would be on the license. She would not agree to that, nor would I.

      The gays can go to the next county. Get married there. Who gives a shit.

      Kevin, you ought to rethink your ideas about "fear" and "phobia". It's not the people who fight the gaystapo who are phobic, but the people who are afraid to do so.

    7. "The gays can go to the next county. Get married there. Who gives a shit."

      And Rosa could have given up her seat to the white person and still got safely to her destination. Who gives a shit?

      Well, apparently a lot of people give a shit when someone treats another as a second class citizen. Please tell me how her religious freedom is being infringed? She is free to continue to marry men, as she has several times. Same sex marriage is now legal. As a county clerk she took an oath. She is breaking that oath. She received a court order to issue the license. She refused.

      I have no sympathy for her. If her conscience bothers her so much she can always seek alternate employment.