Social Justice™ ideology is, of course, inconsistent and selectively applied depending on the circumstance to justify itself. It’s very postmodern in this way.
I recently reported on a corporate media-driven Social Justice™ scandal involving a YouTuber named Mr. Beast who paid for a bunch of blind people’s surgeries that resulted in the restoration of their sight.
Instead of celebrating the gift of sight, or even just shrugging their shoulders in indifference, the Social Justice™ hall monitors came out in full force to condemn Mr. Beast for an imagined heresy called “systemic ableism” that they invented five minutes ago.
Via TechCrunch:
The video was more ableist than altruistic. In the broadest lens, the biggest problem with wanting to “cure” blindness is that it reinforces a moral superiority of sorts by those without disabilities over those who are disabled. Although not confronted nearly as often as racism and sexism, systemic ableism is pervasive through all parts of society. The fact of the matter is that the majority of abled people view disability as a failure of the human condition; as such, people with disabilities should be mourned and pitied. More pointedly, as MrBeast stated in his video’s thumbnail, disabilities should be eradicated — cured.
But if people are just fine the way God made them and corrective surgery is an unnecessary burden foisted upon them by a judgmental society, then why would the same logic not apply to “affirmative” transgender surgery that either snips off the genitals (for male-to-female) or glues some flesh to the crotch (for female-to-male).
Isn’t the idea that someone should have to surgically alter his (or her, in the case of female-to-male) genitals to feel better about himself and live his best life a social imposition? Why shouldn’t he simply be encouraged to accept himself as he is?
Recommended: WATCH: Chelsea Handler’s Sad Anti-Motherhood Propaganda Film
Via Cleveland Clinic:
Research has shown that transgender individuals who choose gender-affirming surgery experience long-term mental health benefits. In one study, a person’s odds of needing mental health treatment declined by 8% each year after the gender-affirming procedure.
Cutting holes in one’s flesh in order to insert “sacs filled with either sterile salt water (saline) or a material called silicone” designed to resemble human breasts is a boon for a transes’ mental health. But if that same individual were blind, then surgery to allow him to see properly would be “ableist” and morally bankrupt.
So, to recap, here’s the dichotomy:
- On the one hand, restoring vision to blind people, a sense necessary to function in the world, is a cruel barbarism perpetrated on innocent blind people who don’t really want to see anything anyway, all in the service of placating an “ableist” society. There are no benefits of sight that outweigh the gift of blindness, and everyone should accept their lack of sight because they’re perfect just the way they are
- On the other hand, chopping one’s genitals off in a risky surgery so as to better role-play the opposite sex — which one can never actually become because it’s biologically inherent in one’s DNA — is a transformative act of self-empowerment.
If you notice any logical inconsistency, you’re obviously a transphobe who deserves silencing on social media. That was my punishment for questioning the merits of transgenderism a few years back.
