By: Thomas Wigand | New Zeal
PART II – THE TWELVE QUESTIONS
As a (presumptive) member of the Diversity Leadership of the Diversity Deep State, you and your Progressive tribe of supporters have been imposing “fundamental transformation” on our country in the form of so-called “Diversity & Inclusion” (D&I). This agenda is already pervasive in government and private workplaces across the land, and is spreading at a rapid rate. Given that, there are several questions to which we deserve answers.
You and your fellow Progressives are bending social morays, and harnessing legal force, to manufacture your vision of a “diverse society” – and it is clear that conscientious objectors will not be tolerated.
For example, the environment of increasingly “politically correct” – and suppressive – college campuses and workplaces; or the jihad against those who have faith-based objections, press-ganging them into celebrating homosexual civil marriages, lest they forfeit their livelihoods by adhering to their faith).
Since it is evident that you intend to compel us to comply with whatever D&I holds in store, we have a need to know what is what with this D&I agenda – what it is; what it will be (what does your intended ultimate outcome look like?); and going forward, how do you intend for it to be implemented, administered and enforced. And by whom, and by when?
As you progenitors of D&I hail from elite sections of society, and have been planning our collective future, no doubt you’ve already considered all of the questions to follow, and so should have the answers readily at hand.
It’s time for a diversity pow-wow, Fauxcahontas. Shall we begin?
QUESTION 1: WHAT MINIMUM PERCENTAGE OF DNA IS REQUIRED TO QUALIFY AS A “MEMBER” OF A PARTICULAR MINORITY GROUP?
We decided to begin with a question that should be near and dear to your heart, Fauxcahontas.
It is also one that intrigues us as a threshold question, because we’re baffled at why you have not yet accepted President Trump’s offer of one million dollars for taking a DNA test. After all, for most of us taking him up on that offer would be a life-changing, a without a moment’s hesitation no-brainer.
[President Trump, if you happen to read this, I’ll be happy to accept your offer. Heck, I’d even do it for half-a-million bucks (pun intended). If you’re interested, I’m sure that the famously skilled White House operators can find my number, pronto (or is that Tonto?). In any case, I stand ready to take your offer at any time, day or night.]
Fauxcahontas, purportedly you are 1/32 Cherokee (or something like that); and even that was enough to have you classified as “Native American” by Harvard Law School, with the full-spectrum of Diversity Privileges that status carried with it.
So obviously 1/32 is sufficient to qualify as a “diversity candidate” at Harvard.
But is 1/32 the minimum? Or is the threshold even lower? Do you Progressives now recognize, or in future plan to reinstate, the “one drop (of blood) rule” that in the old South was used to classify someone as “Negro?”
QUESTION 2: IF THE ONE DROP RULE (OR SIMILAR MINISCULE PERCENTAGE) QUALIFIES ONE AS BEING “MINORITY” OR “DIVERSE,” WILL THAT THEN QUALIFY THOSE INDIVIDUALS FOR THE FULL RANGE OF DIVERSITY PRIVILEGES?
Or will there be a higher minimum threshold before Diversity Privileges become available?
Whatever the threshold(s), once the eligibility thresholds are determined by the Diversity Leadership, will they be permanently fixed, or subject to change?
For example, if the one-drop rule ultimately enables a large majority of the population to grab the brass ring of “diversity status,” and so open-up Diversity Privileges to nearly everyone, will the threshold(s) be raised in order to confine the privileges for a smaller pool?
Or might the Diversity Leadership fence-out entire “diversity” categories from privilege eligibility in order to restrict access to Diversity Privileges for other selected groups?
QUESTION 3: CATEGORIZATION AS “DIVERSE” WITH ACCESS TO DIVERSITY PRIVILEGES IS CURRENTLY OPEN TO GROUPS NOT JUST BASED UPON IMMUTABLE CHARACTERISTICS– DNA OF DIFFERENT RACES, OR MALE / FEMALE – BUT ALSO UPON OTHER CHARACTERISTICS.
SO WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA FOR SELECTING WHICH CHARACTERISTICS ARE TO BE GRANTED COVETED “DIVERSITY” STATUS … AND ARE THOSE SELECTION CRITERIA THEMSELVES FIXES, OR SUBJECT TO CHANGE BY THE DIVERSITY LEADERSHIP?
In recent years homosexuality has, in many respects, been assigned first among equals status within the “diversity” camp. It is not a race, or a gender, but a condition that may or may not, in whole or in part, be attributable to an immutable characteristic.
As the homosexual movement has largely accomplished its goals, an “LGBT” group that was strategically waiting in the wings has now taken over as the current cause celebre of the diversity agenda: transsexuals. Yet, trans-sexuality is not, and cannot be, an immutable characteristic.
Except for certain abnormalities, genetics allows for only two genders – female and male – based upon XX or XY chromosomes. So it is scientifically impossible to switch from male to female, or vice-versa … and no amount of hormone dosing or cosmetic surgery can or will alter that objective reality.
So, the point is (as mentioned in Part I) that as other groups eyed the perks and privileges enjoyed by beneficiaries of affirmative action, they sought to get in on the action – and thus we got “diversity.” The decision by the Diversity Leadership to grant “diversity” status to a group denying its immutable characteristics – not because of, but despite its immutable characteristics – demonstrates that the criteria for approving diversity status has become much more (shall we say) “inclusive.”
So are there criteria for decided which of the potential categories will (or will not) be approved for the coveted “diversity” status, and so eligible for Diversity Privileges?
Or is such status granted at the whim of the Diversity Leadership, in an “arbitrary and capricious“ manner?
Don’t we average citizens have a right to know?
Speaking of arbitrary and capricious, let’s discuss so-called “Hispanics.”
In many respects the Diversity Leadership has been treating “Hispanics” as the “new Blacks.”
Not just by bestowing this category with “diversity” status, but eyeing them as the new “majority minority.” (“Hispanics” are now more numerous than Blacks; presumably this pushes Blacks into a lower position within the Diversity Hierarchy.)
Apparently the Diversity Leadership doesn’t recognize – but more likely recognizes, but just doesn’t care – about the irony of Blacks becoming more “minority” on a relative basis than Hispanics, causing Blacks to be pushed down instead of up within the Diversity Hierarchy.
For the Diversity Leadership, “Hispanics” are displacing Blacks as the future standard bearers of Diversity Privileges. Why? Here’s a hint: it’s all about increasing the ranks of potential Democrat voters, as well documented via Trevor Loudon’s Rainbow Conspiracy.
We were about to say that Hispanics were about to become the “majority of the ‘majority minority’” category within the immutable characteristic corner of “diversity.” But, uh, there’s an “inconvenient truth” – “Hispanic” is not a race; nor does it require any other form of immutable characteristic.
There are no particular immutable characteristics used as criteria for inclusion. Rather, it’s yet another arbitrary and capricious category. But don’t take our word for it, read on …
QUESTION 4: CAN A STRAIGHT, WHITE MALE HAVE “EQUAL OPPORTUNITY” TO PARTAKE OF DIVERSITY PRIVILEGE BY “IDENTIFYING”AS ONE OR MORE OF THE APPROVED DIVERSITY CATEGORIES?
OR DOES THE DIVERSITY LEADERSHIP REQUIRE, E.G., SOME THRESHOLD AMOUNT OF DNA AS A PREREQUISITE FOR ADMISSION?
We ask, Fauxcahontas, because it’s all a little confusing. For you see, you proceeded to claim Diversity Privileges based on some element of DNA (however miniscule). On the other hand, even back before the 2000 census the U.S. Census Bureau said, and also said:
How Do I Answer the Question on Race?
The individual who responds to the census decides what his or her racial identity is. For the first time ever, people answering the census will be able to select more than one racial category to indicate mixed racial heritage. The groups shown in the census race question collapse into the six race groups needed by the federal government: White, Black or African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders.
What is race?
The Census Bureau defines race as a person’s self-identification with one or more social groups. An individual can report as White, Black or African American, Asian, American Indian and Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, or some other race. Survey respondents may report multiple races.
What is ethnicity?
Ethnicity determines whether a person is of Hispanic origin or not. For this reason, ethnicity is broken out in two categories, Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino. Hispanics may report as any race.
Thus, the U.S. Census Bureau tells us that as far as the federal government is concerned, merely being from certain countries (or being descended from those who were) – no matter their DNA– is sufficient for “inclusion” (pun intended) to the diversity category of “Hispanic.”
Yet people who hail from other countries do not, by that nationality status, acquire eligibility for any Diversity Privileges (again, from the U.S. Census Bureau):
Does Everyone Need to Answer the Question on Hispanic Origin?
Yes, the Hispanic origin question must be answered by EVERYONE. Those who are not of Hispanic origin are asked to mark the box “NO, not Spanish/Hispanic/Latino.”People who are of Hispanic origin are asked to indicate the specific group they belong to: Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, or other groups, such as Spanish, Honduran, or Venezuelan.
How Do I Answer the Ancestry Question?
Ancestry refers to an individual’s nationality, lineage, or the country in which the individual or the individual’s parents or ancestors were born before their arrival in the United States. Examples of ancestries are Polish, Jamaican, Egyptian, and Taiwanese. The ancestry question is open-ended, allowing respondents to write in their lineage or ancestry.
It appears that White, European Spaniards – or at least the descendants thereof – snuck in under the wire for Diversity Privileges. Somehow the Portuguese who also colonized parts of South America (e.g., Brazil) got the diversity shaft. Maybe those of Spanish descent had better lobbyists in Washington, D.C.
Fauxcahontas, we think that you can understand our confusion. Since the Federal Government for purposes of doling out various Diversity Privileges requires racial and ethnic data, but says that we get to decide what that is, do the same standards apply for all form of Diversity Privileges such as college admissions and job recruitment? Or just to a select few?
If just some, what are they? What were the criteria for including certain privileges while excluding others? Is the list of included privileges fixed, or is it subject to change? Is the selection criteria fixed or subject to change? You as a member of the Diversity Leadership need to guide us!
[Faux, if I may call you that, on a personal note: I have both Irish and German ancestors. Do you have any tips concerning how I might go about getting one or both of those slipped into the “Hispanic” category, so that I can get out of the heterosexual White male basement of the diversity pyramid?
Or, better yet, get both of those added as approved diversity categories on a stand-alone basis? That way I could qualify in two diversity categories and not lumped be lumped in and competing within the already large “Hispanic” diversity category!
Is there an application to fill out to submit to the Diversity Leadership? If so, where do a get a copy and to where do I submit it once completed? Is there an application fee? If so, how much, and does the Diversity Leadership accept credit cards?]
QUESTION 5: WHAT IS THE DIVERSITY LEADERSHIP’S STANCE ON PEOPLE WHO, BASED ON IMMUTABLE CHARACTERISTICS, ARE HALF-WHITE & HALF “MINORITY” – AND SO STRADDLING THE FENCE?
Take former President Barack Hussein Obama, for example. He self-identified as Black but, at least on paper, could have self-identified as White.
For the benefit of others similarly situated, is this call by personal choice or preference, or is such status now (or in future) to be determined by the Diversity Leadership (or it subsidiaries)?
If by personal choice or preference, is that a one-time, permanent choice to be made, or can it be revisited on a periodic basis or schedule?
Or can it be situational or simultaneous, such as identifying as Black on a college application and White in other venues?
If Barack Obama had identified as White, would he be liable for reparations, as called for by certain Blacks? Or on a pro rata basis, based on the percentage of his White & Black DNA?
Tell us Fauxcahontas – in an increasingly mixed-race society, we need you and the rest of the Diversity Leadership to make the call, and then issue our orders.
QUESTION 6: WHAT IS THE CURRENT PECKING ORDER WITHIN THE DIVERSITY HIERARCHY, I.E., BETWEEN (DIFFERENT) IMMUTABLE CHARACTERISTICS; MIXED IMMUTABLE CHARACTERISTICS AND NON-IMMUTABLE CATEGORIES; AND AMONG AND BETWEEN NON-IMMUTABLE CATEGORIES?
WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA USED BY THE DIVERSITY LEADERSHIP IN ESTABLISHING THE DIVERSITY CATEGORY “PECKING ORDER,”AND IS THAT “PECKING ORDER” SUBJECT TO CHANGE?
IS IT THE CASE THAT THIS WILL BECOME ORWELLIAN; THAT ALL (APPROVED) DIVERSITY CATEGORIES EQUAL, BUT THAT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS?
For example, let’s say that there’s a Black male and a White female vying for a particular job. Is it a wash for purposes of the Diversity Privilege?
Or does the Black form of immutable-characteristic diversity trump the female form of immutable characteristic diversity (e.g., because females are approximately half of the population, while Blacks are less than half)?
Or are there demerits associated with his male status, in full or in part, nullifying the Black part, and so swinging the decision to her favor?
Does a “half & half” minority-identifying individual get the preference over a Fauxcahontas-like “one drop of blood” individual?
Does a 100% Hispanic get preference over an individual with 90% Black DNA?
What if the 100% Hispanic is of 100% White Spanish descent, does that change the analysis?
Does a “Hispanic” of White Spanish descent lose out in the diversity preference competition to a Hispanic of indigenous Central American descent? Or is it that once you’re Hispanic, you’re Hispanic?
Are all “diversities” equal; that once anyone is classified in any one of the officially approved diversity categories, it balances out with anyone else’s officially recognized diversity category? Are all “diversity” candidates then judged on their merits (after White males have been eliminated from consideration)?
In other words, is it the case that those with multiple officially recognized diversity categories get preference over those with fewer officially recognized diversity categories; or is it that once one is admitted to the Diversity Preference club all are equal, and then judged based upon individual merit?
Are all (approved) diversities equal – but some diversities are more equal than others?
Fauxcahontas: It’s obvious that this matrix of officially recognized diversity categories rapidly becomes complex, with innumerable potential combinations. So these questions are going to come up in our “increasingly diverse” society. We need answers, sooner rather than later.
QUESTION 7: QUESTION #6 PRESAGES A CONCERN THAT COMPETITION BETWEEN DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF DIVERSITY HOLDERS COULD BECOME FIERCE.
THE PROPERTY INTEREST VALUE OF THEIR INDIVIDUAL PACKAGE OF DIVERSITY PREFERENCES WILL RISE AND FALL BASED UPON THEIR RELATIVE STATUS WITHIN THE DIVERSITY HIERARCHY (I.E., THE DIVERSITY PYRAMID).
SO WHILE THE DIVERSITY LEADERSHIP CAN PROMULGATE BROAD EDICTS, THERE WILL NEED TO BE SOME MECHANISM FOR RECONCILING CONFLICTS BETWEEN COMPETING PACKAGES OF DIVERSITY PREFERENCES. SO WILL WE NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING LIKE “DIVERSITY COURTS?”
If so, will these have the force of law?
Will there be civil and criminal penalties for those who commit “diversity fraud” – obtaining Diversity Preferences under false pretenses?
Who will select the “diversity judges,” and if so, what will be the criteria for selecting them?
Will those “judges” have ethical and conflict of interest rules, such as not being able to hear cases in which they share any of the particular officially recognized diversity category with any of the parties?
Will there be layers of “diversity courts” so that people can appeal rulings?
Will they be televised? After all, episodes of “Diversity Court” could be even more entertaining than “Divorce Court!”
QUESTION 8: IN ORDER TO VERIFY ELIGIBILITY (AND DIVERSITY STATUS) – AND TO ENSURE THAT “NO DIVERSITY-DNA HOLDER IS LEFT BEHIND” – SHOULD WE NOT REQUIRE GENETIC TESTING OF EVERY AMERICAN RESIDENT?
This may be a compelling state interest. For example, if the Diversity Leadership decides to use the “one drop rule” (or similar small percentage) as the threshold for eligibility to Diversity Privileges, then millions of Americans could unknowingly be leaving Diversity Privileges on the table. Certainly our Diversity Leadership wishes to avoid such an injustice. Perhaps the slogan for this program can be: “Medicare-covered Genetic Testing for all!”
QUESTION 9: DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS SAY THAT WITHIN A COUPLE OF DECADES AMERICAN WILL BECOME A “MAJORITY MINORITY” COUNTRY; THAT WHITES WILL BE IN THE MINORITY.
IF THAT IS THE CASE, WILL DIVERSITY PRIVILEGES BE REVERSED, AND PREFERENCES GIVEN TO WHITES INSTEAD OF PRESENT-DAY “MINORITIES?”
Or is D&I a one-way street?
QUESTION 10: WILL DIVERSITY PREFERENCES EVER BE ELIMINATED?
Does D&I continue in perpetuity, or is there some benchmark(s) or other criteria which will be the catalyst for folding it all up?
If so, what are those benchmarks? Are they fixed or subject to change?
Or are there established calendar deadlines by which D&I will be folded up, no matter what the progress has been against whatever benchmarks the Diversity Leadership has established?
QUESTION 11: IS THERE ANY LINE THAT D&I WON’T CROSS? ARE THERE ANY MORAL OR RELIGIOUS BOUNDARIES THAT WILL BE RESPECTED?
First, some historical perspective is essential before we get to the main part of this question:
Throughout recorded history homosexuality has not been “celebrated” by most societies, nor seen as something to have “pride” in. Major religions – notably the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam – hold that engaging in homosexual activities is a sin (meaning that people who sincerely adhere to those faiths consider it to be a sin, including the Christian writer of this series).
Yet seemingly overnight (from a historical perspective) – within just a few decades – in the Western world homosexuality has gone from the status it held for millennia (considered abnormal or deviant), to being openly “celebrated,” with those who engage in it expressing “pride” in it. And, in 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court – not unlike what it did with abortion – discovered a previously unknown “right” to homosexual (civil) marriages in the U.S. Constitution, thus imposing it nationwide.
It all marched in under the banner of “civil rights” and D&I; and today under that same banner of D&I citizens are not only being ordered to tolerate homosexuality, but embrace it – even when such “embrace” violates their sincerely-held religious beliefs (adhering to which can now result in the loss of one’s livelihood).
Homosexuality being given legal precedence over the exercise of Judaism, Christianity and Islam would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. Embracing sin being legally required, and being made a condition of employment, likewise would have unthinkable mere years ago.
Such is the power of that D&I now wields across our land.
And in what seemed to be mere days after civil marriages for homosexuals was achieved – thus appearing to be “on cue” – transsexualism and “gender identity and expression” suddenly appeared at the forefront of diversity advocacy.
In another example of an agenda seeking to bust a consensus shared over millennia, we are now told that “male and female” is a “social construct” and, in a gender blitzkrieg, ordered to “embrace” the idea that there is a “gender spectrum.”
(The lavish and expansive – the inescapable – media attention devoted to transsexuality, the incidence of which is actually vanishingly small across the population, is a telltale sign that at root there’s some other agenda driving this. There is; and Part III exposes that. )
New York City now legally requires citizens and businesses to “recognize ”31 “gender identities” (was NYC inspired by Baskin-Robbins)?
Not to be outdone, Massachusetts apparently came close to voting on 73 different “genders” – apparently using Facebook’s categories as its authoritative source (as described in the foregoing link).
For obvious reasons, it is unclear at this point if there is, or ever will be, any upper limit on the number of possible “genders.”
Whereas historically “sex” and “gender” were used interchangeably to denote “male” and female,” we are now told that “sex” refers only to the biological sense, and that historical understandings of “gender” are a “social construct.”
Quite the opposite: the real “social construct” is the fabricated redefinition of “gender” being peddled by the D&I agenda (for a comprehensive discussion of this, see “Sex, Gender, and the Origin of the Culture Wars: An Intellectual History”).
Note too Webster’s definition of “gender” from its 1828 edition: “A sex, male or female.”
That understanding of the word “gender” was present throughout recorded history, and into recent times – at least until the 1960’s. Note this:
Fowler’s Modern English Usage, 3rd Edition (1996): “Since the 14C. the word has been primarily a grammatical term, applied to groups of nouns designated as masculine, feminine, or neuter. During all of these centuries, however, as the OED [Oxford English Dictionary] shows, it has been used as a term meaning ‘the sex of a person’ (e.g. Of the fair sex … my only consolation for being of that gender has been the assurance it gave me of never being married to any one among them– Lady M.W. Montagu, 1709). The OED (1899) labeled this sense “Now only jocular’. Since the 1960s this secondary sense has come into much more frequent use, esp. among feminists, with the intention of ‘emphasizing the social and cultural, as opposed to the biological distinctions between the sexes (OED2). As a result the literature of the subject bristles with expressions such as gender gap, gender identity, gender language, gender model, gender role, and gender-specific; and fashionable courses at our universities abound in titles such as ‘Literature and Gender in the English Restoration.’”
While there is (and always has been) a spectrum within masculinity and feminity – “macho man” to “90 pound weakling,” and “girly girl” to “tomboy” – there are only two genders. History affirms that understanding. Science – biology and genetics – affirms that fact. (“Science denier” gender-fluidity advocates notwithstanding).
Across the land, children are being targeted for indoctrination into what is, by objective standards, a fabrication.
For example, see here “You Won’t Believe What Kids Can Find On ‘Transgender’ At The Public Library”, and here “‘Progressive Education’: Children Color a Unicorn to Match Their ‘Gender Identity’” and here The Youth and Gender Media Project and here Satanic-looking drag queen reads to children at library named after Michelle Obama and here Cartoon Network Forces Lesbian Kiss Scene into Kid’s Cartoon.
While what is “abnormal” or “deviant” involves some element of subjectivity, we are being compelled by force of law and company policy, and school district edict, to dispense with basic biological and genetic science, objective reality and common sense – dismissing them as “social constructs – while being forced to accept as reality what are genuinely “social constructs,” because they are objectively impossible.
It is fair to ponder if this is but part of a larger effort aimed at conditioning us to abandon reality, intellectual curiosity and discernment – and instead to passively accept whatever the Progressive elite tells us to believe.
Note this pertinent – and prescient? – take from a 2005 interview with Dr. Theodore Dalrymple (as quoted in Bathroom Wars’ Goal: Humiliate the American Normal Majority):
FP: You make the shrewd observation of how political correctness engenders evil because of “the violence that it does to people’s souls by forcing them to say or imply what they do not believe, but must not question.” Can you talk about this a bit?
Dalrymple: Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.
When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.
Human beings don’t, and can’t, have 30-plus genders, any more than can our dogs and cats. Biology doesn’t work that way; nor genetics. Nor has human civilization up until now. When young we were taught about the “birds and the bees” – not the “birds+LBGT+” or “bees+LGBT+.”
There is “social construct” running rampant – but it originates from Progressives and their D&I agenda, not scientific adherence nor objective reality.
“You are a slow learner, Winston.”
“How can I help it? How can I help but see what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.”
“Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.” – 1984, George Orwell
To be sure, the above foray into the LGBTadfinitum movement was not for purposes of bashing people with those conditions (as a Christian, I endeavor to “hate the sin, but love the sinner”), but instead to point out how rapidly things that recently were near-universally considered deviant are now not only required to be tolerated in a “love the sinner” sense, which is as it should be – but by law and company policy and school district edict are required to be “celebrated,” endorsed and embraced by us all.
What started out as a noble civil rights movement aimed at undoing and remedying a manifest injustice (slavery and its legacy effects), has had its mechanisms absorbed into (hijacked by) D&I and employed to provide Diversity Privileges to individuals of certain DNA components (but not others); to provide Diversity Privileges to individuals who happen to have ancestors from certain countries, but not others (no matter their DNA composition).
And now D&I has been morphed further into providing Diversity Privileges to what were once generally considered to be sexual deviancies and/or mental health problems (and are still considered sins by the major religions).
One does not have to be particularly astute to smell a rat; it’s easy to discern that the Diversity Leadership has maneuvered on to the proverbial slippery slope, and which sets us up for why we must ask this Question 11:“Is there any line that D&I won’t cross? Are there any religious or moral boundaries that will be respected?”
Is there anything that the Diversity Leadership will refuse to add to the queue waiting for official approval as a diversity category entitled to Diversity Privileges?
Just as the transsexuals / gender identity crowd appear to have awaited their turn until after the homosexuals obtained what they deemed as final victory (the forced recognition of homosexual civil marriages across the land), we now see other groups are lining up in the queue:
“Polyamory” / Polygamy advocates: ‘Polyamory’: the next civil rights movement? and Polyamory and the New Struggle for Civil Rights and Why People Are Fighting to Get Polyamory Recognized as a Sexual Orientation and Polyamorous Rights Advocates See Marriage Equality Coming for Them
Pedophilia advocates: TEDx speaker: ‘Pedophilia is an unchangeable sexual orientation,’ ‘anyone’ could be born that way and Pedophiles: The next normal and Pedophiles Believe They Should Be a Part of the LGBT Community
Bestiality / “Zoophilia” advocates: Liberals refuse to condemn bestiality, now call it ‘interspecies romance’ and A Review Of ‘The Shape Of Water,’ From A Guy Who Had Sex With A Dolphin and Zoophiles protest against German bestiality ban
Cross-species and other identity advocates (“Otherkin”): Species dysphoria and Otherkin and Otherkin Are People Too; They Just Identify as Nonhuman
Given the foregoing recitation of D&I to date, and the groups that are lining up, it’s a more-than-fair question to ask of Fauxcahontas and the Diversity Leadership:
Is there any line that D&I won’t cross? Are there any boundaries – moral, scientific, objective reality, religious faith, mental health, species integrity – that will be respected?
Or is it your intention that every one of the above-cited groups – and perhaps more – will in turn get your approval and be granted approved diversity category status, and then by D&I be empowered to compel everyone else’s embrace of their predilections?
QUESTION 12: WILL YOU EVEN ANSWER THE PREVIOUS QUESTIONS?
Finally, will you fully and completely and truthfully respond to the foregoing questions?
Or will we be treated to the usual Progressive tactics of either ignoring the question(s), providing a non-responsive response ,or deflection by slinging at us characterizations like “phobe” and “hate?”
Now on to Part III, where we will tie it all together …
Mr. Wigand is the author of the book Communiqués From the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, which is available on Amazon in both print and Kindle versions. Comments or questions for Mr. Wigand may be sentto: [email protected]— he will make every effort to personally respond to each email.