Mind-tyranny in America, liberalism wrought to its uttermost

A reader writes

James Watson’s forced recantation reminds me of a situation that has arisen at a particular government-administered intelligence program with which I am familiar. One of the employees at this office has decided he is a woman, and has demanded—and so far received—the right to use the women’s restroom. Management has informed the women who work there that if they even voice disagreement, they will lose their jobs on the spot. All employees are required to call him by his new female name, to use female pronouns in reference to him, and to otherwise assent that this very sick individual really is a woman. Again, failure to do so will result in immediate termination, no questions asked. They have been instructed, in other words, that they shall accept as true whatever they are told. Any suggestion that they believe their own eyes over what management tells them shall result in being cast into the outer darkness—this is a very privileged world and once you’ve been expelled, it is nearly impossible to get back in.

What has been astonishing to behold is the number of employees—particularly the functionaries in middle management—who have taken the view that because we humans make our own reality, they now believe—really believe—that this man is a woman. Management has said so. He has said so. To deny it is to commit an act of discrimination. All discrimination is wrong. I believe he is a woman. And so forth.

There are some who have privately reacted with horror, and the thing that horrifies them most is that so many people are willing to surrender their minds to the control of others, and to believe that reality is whatever they are told it is by the authorities. A scene which as always stuck with from from 1984 involves Winston watching his interrogator destroy a piece of evidence that the government was lying. You must remember that such evidence existed, he insists. You yourself held in in your own hands only moments ago. “I do not remember it,” his tormentor replies, and Winston sinks into despair.

Watching men as accomplished as Watson debase themselves and profess not to believe what they know to be true fills me with the same kind of despair.

LA replies:

This is one of the worst things I’ve ever heard. But is there no recourse? I think the employees in this department ought to sue over the manager’s threats. You can’t require people, on threat of the loss of their job, to buy into such an unnatural situation without any questions, any normal reactions.

RWM writes:

I am a trial lawyer. Sounds to me like the folks in the federal agency your correspondent describes have very straightforward first amendment claims. Do you remember the Supreme Court case where New Hampshire was sued successfully for placing “Live Free or Die” on its license plates? As I recall, the theory was that it was tantamount to forcing Plaintiff to make the statement. Perhaps someone there should contact the ACLJ, or at least speak to a lawyer versed in Constitutional litigation. I can’t imagine on these fact that it would be very difficult to find a lawyer willing to take the case. I think because of a bias, conservatives tend to underutilize trial lawyers to vindicate their “social” rights.

Charles G. writes:

Re: Mind-tyranny in America, liberalism wrought to its uttermost

A piece like this makes you wonder why any normal person would even consider taking a government job, especially at the federal level. Who would willingly place himself under such tyranny if there were any other alternative? I’m beginning to have contempt for people who take these jobs and then whine about the tyranny. Get out of there! If you have any intelligence, personal drive and integrity, you don’t need to become a bureaucrat under these conditions.

N. writes:

Depending on the agency there may not be recourse. The gay rights movement has been pushing in the last few years not only to include homosexuals in the protected-minority category but also the “trans” groups: transsexual, trans- gender and so forth. Just earlier this month there was a debate in the Congress on making homosexuals a protected minority at the Federal level and Barney Frank had to reluctantly admit that a majority of Congressional representatives were not ready to go forward and also include the trans-sexual, trans-gendered & so forth.

But apparently some states, such as California, Minnesota, New York, have already done so: made it illegal to discriminate on the job against people who have had so-called “sex change operations” (“sexual reassignment” is the modern term) as well as those who have decided they are now “male” or “female” & chosen to dress and act accordingly (hormones optional). So it could be that this person is already protected and literally cannot be told which bathroom to use, or to stop wearing women’s clothing. It is also possible that the agency has adopted such “protection” via an administrative decision.

This is the wave of the future for some; the notion of gender as a fluid, ever-changing thing that one is free constantly to experiment with. Indeed, at some oh-so-hip restaurants off of the coasts there are no longer bathrooms marked “Men” and “Women,” but just a couple of rooms marked “Restroom” with perhaps a discreet plaque “contains urinal” on one of the doors.

It appears to be a logical extension of the gay rights movement of the 70’s and 80’s, combined with the corrupting influence of the various “there is no such thing as objective truth” movements since WW II. Now there’s no such thing as objective reality, just faith: faith in anthropogenic global warming, in man’s ability to redefine himself in any way that is pleasing, faith in man’s unlimited power to shape reality.

In fact, hmm, that faith may be tied to a whole lot of other errors, blunders and even social ills. We’ll have to think about that.

James N. writes:

It’s interesting that government support for the transsexual delusion is increasing as medical support for the sexual mutilation and associated drug-induced body changes is decreasing. Johns Hopkins closed its sex-reassignment program at least ten years ago after a retrospective review showed that psychological dysfunction was not decreased by the surgery, and fear of medical malpractice litigation has driven a lot of these procedures offshore. A significant number of Westerners now get these procedures done in Thailand.

When the history of this age is written, the existence of government support for voluntary sexual mutilation will be one of its most remarkable episodes, as will the use of the coercive power of the state to support and in some cases enforce the delusion.

RWM writes:

Responding somewhat to N., who states that “depending on the federal agency there may not be recourse”, and mentions a few states who have enacted statutes giving “protected” status to homosexuality and related problems. I disagree with this attitude. Federal civil rights litigation exists to overturn federal regs/policies and state laws which are found to violate the Constitution. Of course, this is much abused. What I am saying is that this is a clear case of a true grievance under the First Amendment, and yet conservatives will tend to say that nothing can be done because of x (or if not x, then y, then z). We need to be at their throats in court every time our freedoms of speech and conscience are violated. The opportunity to do so via First Amendment litigation is perhaps the only thing separating us from European-style “hate speech” persecution. If no conservative indiividual at that agency can rouse himself to vindicate his (and our) rights, it’s a bad sign indeed.

LA replies:

I agree with RWM that this sounds on the face of it like a First Amendment violation.

And for once we don’t have to deal with the Incorporation Doctrine since this is a federal agency we’re talking about, so the First Amendment applies directly to it without any legerdemain.

Also, I didn’t know that New Hampshire’s license slogan “Live Free or Die” had been thrown out. Personally, that slogan always seemed to me a bit outre and aggressive for a mere license plate, and my first reaction is to agree with the decision. (Though of course without the incorporation doctrine, the federal government/courts could have nothing to do with the matter and the poeple of N.H. would have had to change it through their legislature, or, uh, live with it.)

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 19, 2007 01:34 PM | Send