Your New Year's sexual-identity quiz
Exclusive: Brent Smith offers his definitions of some of today's gender labels
By Brent SmithPublished December 27, 2019 at 7:05pm
ThinkProgress is reporting: "CNN's planning a 2020 LGBTQ forum. Here are some issues advocates say the candidates should address."
"High on the list: Reversing the ban on transgender troops and addressing the plight of LGBTQ people of color."
Well, isn't that special.
Let's see if we can pigeon-hole everyone in America, so we all have our very own "gender" classification.
That would be great.
But, if I were one who belonged to the "perpetually offended" club, I would feel … well, offended.
And just why would I feel this way?
Well, thinking like a leftist, the term LGBTQ itself is too constraining.
It leaves out so many new and (self) important gender classifications.
And frankly, I'm surprised at the callousness of ThinkProgress and CNN for not acknowledging this.
I mean, everyone already knows what this acronym stands for. Lesbian: girls like girls – duh! Gay: It ain't happy. It's guys liking guys. Bisexual: people who are sexually active once every two weeks. Give me a difficult one, why don't-cha? Transgender: dudes are chicks – chicks are dudes. And the "Q" is for Questioning, which I hope most of us are doing right about now.
So, that's the LGBTQ acronym we are all familiar with. But there are literally several dozen more, which is why I was only half kidding about the whole "everyone has their own distinct gender" thing.
Now, it would take several columns to go through them all, and frankly I don't have the interest. So here are just a few that are sadly left out of the established acronym. Some of these may be real eye-openers.
Pansexual: The attraction to kitchen cooking devices – for example, to fry things in, similar to pots. They were originally going to use the term potsexual, but thought it would be confused with those who are sexually attracted to marijuana.
Sapiosexual: Easy – being sexually attracted to the stuff that comes out of pine trees.
Androsexual: One who may be attracted to robot/human hybrids or possibly Google operating systems. They were originally going to use the classification of robosexual, but that might have been confused with ones who are sexually attracted to semi-robotic police officers. (And that one was wasted on those who have never seen "Robocop").
Demisexual: This is an easy one, as it is only those who are attracted to Moores, or Lovados. I mean … all Moores except for Michael.
Omnisexual: Another easy one. A person who is sexually attracted to certain hotels and resorts.
Gynosexual: Now, I know what you're thinking. "I know this one! It's the sexual attraction to a certain medical discipline or doctor – right?"
Well you might think you know, but this one is actually a typo that just never got corrected. It was actually supposed to be Gyro-sexual, or the attraction to Greek sandwiches. Weird – huh?
Polyamorous: You should be able to guess this one. Yes, you're right – very good. It's the sexual attraction to a particular type of talking bird – one that specifically likes, or "wants," a cracker.
Kink: This is a rather specific attraction. Weird, I know, but these individuals deserve our respect too. Anyway, it's having sexual interest in Ray Davies.
If you don't know who he is; look it up. Ironic too, now that I think about it, because his/their biggest hit was "Lola," about a transvestite. Funny old world, ain't it?
Asexual: Again – another misprint or typo that just never got changed. It was supposed to have been spelled "eh-sexual," or the love of Canadians, well, except French Canadians – but who really likes those guys anyway? Know what I mean?
Intersex: See, some of these are just so obvious. I shouldn't even need to explain them, yet here I am. This is the attraction to crosswalks and places where streets come together. Come on, people – think!
OK, seriously. I poke fun at the terms, but the left not only wants us to accept these as actual genders, but legitimize and normalize all these various proclivities. And it seems not a week goes by without someone claiming not to fit into the now north of 50 different genders. So, Democrats, have fun courting that herd of cats.
I think I'll just stick with the two.
No comments:
Post a Comment