The utter, mind-boggling stupidity of political correctness is demonstrated very clearly in three recent incidents.
[John Staddon, an emeritus professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University] has been removed from an American Psychological Association email discussion group after he posed questions on the listserv that upset others, most recently about the nature of biological sex.
“This incident just illustrates the current inability of some scientific communities to tolerate dissent about issues related to sex and race,” Staddon told The College Fix via email. “Psychology and sociology seem to be especially flawed in this respect.”
The topic that appears to have gotten him removed was the suggestion that there are only two sexes.
Lisa Keogh, a 29-year-old student completing her law degree at Abertay University in Dundee, Scotland, is now facing disciplinary action by the institution after making allegedly "discriminatory" comments.
Some of her fellow students took offence to Keogh's saying that "women have vaginas" or that "the difference in physical strength of men versus women is a fact."
. . .
According to the university's policies, Keogh could even be facing a possible expulsion simply for having offended people in this case.
Francisco José Contreras, deputy to Spain's far-right Vox Party, was locked out of his Twitter account for 12 hours last week after saying "a man cannot get pregnant" because they have "no uterus or eggs."
Contreras' comments were in response to an article he shared on the social media platform about a transgender male who announced they were a father after giving birth to a baby girl.
. . .
"The hateful tweet (which I was forced to delete) was one that said: ′′A man cannot get pregnant. A man has no womb or eggs"," Contreras wrote in response to the move. "You can see this is already fascist biology. Next time I'll try 2 + 2 = 4."
Let's remember that each and every one of the "offending" statements cited above was - and remains - precisely, exactly and literally true. They're scientifically and medically incontrovertible. Those criticizing them may as well be arguing that the moon is made of green cheese. After all, there's about as much merit in that fairy tale as there is in the politically correct criticism directed at the individuals above.
The same, of course, applies in the wider sphere. The mainstream media and left-wing US politicians are united in criticizing those who claim that last November's election was rigged, and its results are fraudulent. The torrent of statistical analysis, evidence of outright shenanigans, and demonstrations of corruption in that election are growing almost by the day (witness recent developments in Arizona and New Hampshire, if you haven't been following the issue) - yet absolute, flat denials that anything was wrong have remained the stock-in-trade of almost everyone on the left. One would think that the clearest, simplest way to disprove the claims of electoral fraud would be to analyze them in detail, forensically, with all evidence examined impartially - but no, the left won't do that and won't allow it. Why not? Is it because they know there's all too much fire beneath the smoke that they're denying? It certainly gives that impression.
Political correctness is fundamentally a lie. It denies plain-as-a-pikestaff fact for political reasons. It needs - and deserves - to be exposed for the lie that it is, on every possible occasion. If it isn't . . . welcome to Newspeak and Doublethink, comrade!
Alexander Solzhenitsyn pointed out, in his essay "Live Not By Lies":
When violence bursts onto the peaceful human condition, its face is flush with self-assurance, it displays on its banner and proclaims: “I am Violence! Make way, step aside, I will crush you!” But violence ages swiftly, a few years pass—and it is no longer sure of itself. To prop itself up, to appear decent, it will without fail call forth its ally—Lies. For violence has nothing to cover itself with but lies, and lies can only persist through violence. And it is not every day and not on every shoulder that violence brings down its heavy hand: It demands of us only a submission to lies, a daily participation in deceit—and this suffices as our fealty.
And therein we find, neglected by us, the simplest, the most accessible key to our liberation: a personal non-participation in lies! Even if all is covered by lies, even if all is under their rule, let us resist in the smallest way: Let their rule hold not through me!
And this is the way to break out of the imaginary encirclement of our inertness, the easiest way for us and the most devastating for the lies. For when people renounce lies, lies simply cease to exist. Like parasites, they can only survive when attached to a person.
We are not called upon to step out onto the square and shout out the truth, to say out loud what we think—this is scary, we are not ready. But let us at least refuse to say what we do not think!
. . .
Our way must be: Never knowingly support lies! Having understood where the lies begin (and many see this line differently)—step back from that gangrenous edge! Let us not glue back the flaking scales of the Ideology, not gather back its crumbling bones, nor patch together its decomposing garb, and we will be amazed how swiftly and helplessly the lies will fall away, and that which is destined to be naked will be exposed as such to the world.
Amen to that!
I highly recommend reading Solzhenitsyn's essay in full. It's worth your time - and, if we all followed his recommendations, it would lead to the inevitable sidelining of political correctness. It is to hope . . .