SOGIE Bill got the LGBTQ+ movement in trouble and also set back the Feminist movement

One thing the circus surrounding the arrest of Gretchen Diez, a “trans” male who demanded that he be allowed to use the female toilet in a mall, proved is that women continue to bear the brunt of society’s ingrained regard for them. People who supported Diez labelled natural women who were in favour of barring male transgenders and crossdressers from using female toilets as “bigots”. It is ironic considering men once again — this time disguised as women — seek to trample upon women’s spaces. Indeed, there was much of the same ironic mansplaining going on as LGBTQ+ “activists” shoved their agendas down the throats of Filipino women.

Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III sent a blunt but perfectly logical message to proponents of the “rights” of males who “identify” as women and express this preference surgically or through their fashion preferences…

“If you are a man, you will never be a woman, no matter what you do, because you cannot reproduce. You cannot give birth, you do not have ovaries,” Sotto said in a media interview, a transcript of which was posted on the Senate’s website.

“You will never be a woman. So this, to me, the SOGIE bill is a bill against women’s rights and it’s giving transgender rights (unclear), so it’s class legislation,” he added.

Sotto inadvertently hits on a disturbing fact about the whole LGBTQ+ “movement”. The acronym had progressively grown since the days when it encompassed only sexual preference — LGB (lesbian, gay, and bisexual). The “T”, presumably covering transgenders and transsexuals, was later added, then “Q”, standing for “queer”, which seems to be redundant with the classes represented by the earlier four letters. The “+” sign then literally made the acronym open-ended to allow the “movement” to add scope to their “cause” arbitrarily and with impunity.

This brings us to the rather confronting question mainstream society asks the LGBTQ+ “movement”:

Where does it end?

The “+” addendum to their “cause” does not provide much promise that this question will be answered anytime soon.

The LGBTQ+ “movement” has become a victim of its own nebulous semantics and scope greed and, as is now evident today, unwittingly starts to invade the space of their erstwhile allies, the Feminist “movement”. We’ve come full circle to see women being victimised by men again. These men just happen to be dressed as women.

The LGBTQ+ “movement” is in trouble because its “activists” have become greedy and shrill. They (1) contaminated a once straightforward LGB cause framed by the once-sensible sexual orientation debate with the notional T, Q, and “+” classes of people it added to its scope, (2) lost touch with the science that underlies “gender”, and, as a result of this sloppy thinking, (3) started to antagonise both mainstream society and its sistah Feminist “movement”.

It is interesting to note that science has progressed significantly in proving strong anatomical bases for how character is formed, what drives emotions, and how the mind works — a convergence of the fields of neuroscience and behavioural science. Thus if the LGBTQ+ “movement” is using emotion as bases for their arguments, they will run into further trouble considering that gender too has clear anatomical bases. The science will eventually catch up with the LGBTQ+ “movement”. It’s just a matter of time. Even now, society’s more sober sensibilities are already on to them.