Blaspheming The Gay God

“If your social justice ‘allyship’ requires blind allegiance, lack of critical thinking, and the silencing of thoughtful dissent, you are actually engaged in a form of worship.

Make sure you know who your God is.”

– The Babe


Quite recently I found myself in the middle of a kerfuffle on Twitter because I broke rank and finally rejected wholesale the entire LGBT movement.

That’s not at all what the white liberal army had ordered.

Especially since I was in the midst of being praised by that army for this essay.

My job as a critically thinking “woke” “liberal” “feminist” “progressive” “open-minded” black woman who is supposed to have a mind towards “intersectionality”, was to work with other “sensible” Trans activism critics to surgically excise the “T” from the LGB, since the current narrative being spun in faux-critical, faux-feminist, faux-woke white liberal SJW circles is that it is those “crazy trannies” that are the source of the contamination of what is otherwise an entirely pure, ethical, and controversy free LGBT movement.

“Yeah, those Ts are crazy,” goes the current thinking, “but the rest of the alphabet is unproblematic.”



And poppycock.

While the LGB and their allies are currently working quite hard to throw the trans under the train in order to save themselves, I will do no such thing.

The Trans folk did not get here by themselves, nor is their incoherence and confusion their own doing. They are, rather, intensifying the incoherence they inherited from the rest of the alphabet to which they are ideologically attached.


If one is to critically analyze the social justice shit show that is Radical Trans Activism (RTA), then one must interrogate where, precisely, their primary premise actually came from, namely that:

sexed embodiment is ultimately inconsequential, and as such a sexual minority should have the right to redefine established social norms and institutions in order to effectively make them gender neutral.

This idea that the sexed body is actually inconsequential to defining established sexed-based social norms and institutions did NOT begin with Trans people, or trans activism. It began with the gay rights movement, and, more specifically, their campaign to redefine “marriage” to simply mean an intentional commitment between two people instead of an intentional commitment between men and women.

Redefining marriage as *essentially* gender neutral is actually, I dared to point out, where this odious idea that sexed embodiment is unimportant actually comes from.

First “marriage” was redefined in a way that erases the salience of sex. Now “woman” is being redefined in a way that erases the salience of sex.

Because they are committed Gay-fearing loyalists, the lib-bots were entirely outraged that I dared speak such blasphemy by pointing out this entirely obvious connection between the propagandist tactics of the LGB and the T.

“We are nothing like them”, claims the LGB and their adherents.

“Yes, you most certainly are,” came my response.

And with that, the Groupthink Anti-H Warning System activated:


So went the din of the liberal bot army in response to my “attack” on their established marriage “equality” dogma/program/software. In my mind’s eye I could see the sparks flying about over the loud whirring of their motors as they self-organized into swarm mode.


[Since, unfortunately, a deep hatred/suspicion of Christians and religious people on the left forces me to say this, no, I am not actually a Christian, nor am I particularly religious. Though I do happen to respect the religious and their right to practice religion.

That being said, my position of rejecting the newly established gender neutral redefinition of marriage does not actually rely on any sort of religious appeal at all. Rather, and this is what really upsets the lib-bots, my position is born of careful empirical observation and philosophical analysis.

What I am, more than anything else, is a critically thinking woman.

I have degrees in both science and philosophy, and anyone who reads this blog would do well to keep that understanding in mind if they intend to come to an understanding of how I process reality.

The Babe follows and applies LOGIC, not Ideological Dogma.

Watching the Gay-fearing loyalists use their own (ir)religious dogma to attack my logical and empirically based arguments was a rather interesting experience, to say the least.]


Marriage, since time immemorial, has been defined as being between men and women. Contrary to what has been marketed by the LGBT movement, its reinvention as a gender neutral institution has not actually been gender neutral in its social consequences.

A claim for the gender neutrality of marriage requires a key change to how marriage has been traditionally understood. Specifically, it requires the conceptual demotion or outright removal of procreative capacity as being a key feature of what defines the institution called “marriage.”

Given that it is the woman in a marriage who is the bearer of this procreative capacity since only she can get pregnant, the consequence of defining marriage as *essentially* non-procreative has been the de facto demotion of the social status of women.

This de facto demoted social status explains in part the ease with which women are currently being silenced and erased in the rush to confusedly label effeminate men as women, and misappropriate women’s resources in the name of serving them.

Indeed, when one considers that the most misogynistic of gay men actually genuinely believe and argue that they have the same rights to reproductive technology as straight couples, including a right to egg donation and surrogacy, it becomes more clear just how sinister this reduction of women to “female machines” whose services should be available for purchase really is.

Much of the current left wing liberal enthusiasm for cross-gender bathroom access, legalized brothels and commercial surrogacy requires an objectified view of women (and their resources) as a set of “services” that men should be able to acquire without any attendant commitment to them.

Note that “commitment to women” is the key conceptual ingredient of that thing called “marriage” in the modern West, particularly as understood and valued by women.

This misogynistic and dehumanizing notion that men should have paid access to women’s bodies without any attendant commitment to them as people, is what I have come to think of as the “service model” of womanhood.

Obviously there are plenty of LGBT and hetero people who are against the service model, however, I hazard a very educated guess that one central belief held by those who do subscribe to it is an ironclad unexamined belief in the literal and conceptual equivalence of homosexual and heterosexual partnerships.

Moreover, that the LGBT community has never, to my knowledge, taken a principled stand with feminist women against the exploitation of poor women (especially those of color) by the practice of commercial surrogacy or legalized prostitution indicates their tacit consent and approval of the service model of womanhood as part of a greater anti-woman globalist liberal agenda.


Before the push for so-called “marriage equality”, the state had been responding to LGBT requests for legal partnership by creating a separate institution for same sex partnerships called “civil unions” (CU). Why then was the concept of civil unions rejected by the LGBT community?

The initial argument made against CU relied on misusing the civil rights argument against segregated schooling, namely the notion of “separate but equal” treatment being inherently unfair. However, if one investigates this argument more closely, it is clear that it does not actually apply in the case of so-called “marriage equality.”

The notion of “equality” relies on the concept of “interchangeability”. That is, there being no meaningful loss to any of the key features of a relationship when one object is substituted for another.

The rejection of the idea of “separate but equal” schooling is grounded in the fact that the races actually are interchangeable regarding intellectual capacity, a key feature with respects to schooling and the provision of resources to support that endeavor.

However, it is entirely obvious, that same sex relationships are not interchangeable regarding procreative capacity, a key feature with respects to marriage and the provision of resources to support that endeavor.

[That some LGBT racists, like all other racists, will no doubt attempt to argue that there really are inherent race-based differences in intellectual capacity because they confusedly believe such an “argument” wins them marriage equality, reveals yet another key feature of the LGBT movement itself. I will say more about LGBT racism later. ]

That a key feature of heterosexual marriage is entirely erased in the context of same sex pairings (to be specific, fertile heterosexual couples can reproduce without third party assistance whereas fertile homosexual couples cannot) shows that the two relationships are NOT actually equal. That is, they are obviously not interchangeable.

Indeed, what this shows is that these relationships belong in a separate class because they are inherently unequal to heterosexual ones. That is, there is a loss of a key and meaningful feature when you substitute one kind of relationship for another.

Moreover, this difference should influence social policy. Specifically, same sex couples do not have a right of access to procreative technology. Indeed, making the argument that they somehow have a right to it when the possibility does not even existing within the context of their relationship requires moving to a “service model” of procreation, and all of its attendant woman-hating values.

Though the biology is entirely obvious here, that so many LGBT people are still willing to deny or “demote” it in the name of preserving a fake notion of “equality” shows precisely what they actually have in common with RTAs.


Indeed, when we do further analysis of LGBT rhetoric with respects to CU vs. “marriage”, we find another narrative, namely that some LGBT people wanted the word “marriage” simply because of its social cache and connotations. One such LGBT lawyer/activist made this clear in an interview on NPR when he explained that “no one fantasizes about their civil union.”

In other words, despite the fact that their relationships are inherently unequal to the institution called “marriage”, they nevertheless wanted possession of the word “marriage” to describe their partnerships. This exactly parallels the way in which male trans seek to possess the word “woman,” despite the fact that they are clearly and obviously not equal to women.

Indeed, something else that LGB and T have in common is deploying the social tactic of shaming and “taboo” in order to prevent critical thinking and clear speech.

The notion of “marriage equality” is a conceptual failure on par with the notion that “transwomen are women.” These ideas can only be made true if we simply erase the reality and importance of basic biology.

Therefore, despite their efforts to the contrary, LGB cannot actually divorce themselves from, or shove onto their T brethren, the fallacy of redefining words and misrepresenting ideas in a manner that obliterates full meaning in the name of creating a self-serving end.


This belief that there is literally no meaningful difference between homosexual and heterosexual partnerships is, I have come to realize, a kind of irreligious, pseudoreligious belief that is fervently held by Gay-fearing liberal loyalists.

This pseudoreligious belief requires either an embrace of misogyny masquerading as misanthropy, or a kind of rigid, illogical biological denialism, both of which are in fact key features in the cognitive architecture of RTAs, as anyone who has experienced #peaktrans knows all too well.

In response to my highlighting procreative capacity as a key feature of how marriage has been defined since the beginning of humanity, many Gay-fearing loyalists with whom I twitter battled eventually fell into discussions focused on population control in order to justify the demotion of procreative capacity. To their minds, non-procreating same sex couplings are the appropriate standard bearers for what committed partnership ought to look like.  This is also the camp that inevitably fell into calling women and het-couples “breeders,” which shows the connection between misanthropy and misogyny/anti-hetero attitudes.

To be clear, while I too believe in the importance of population control, if one genuinely believes that doing so actually requires misogyny, shaming those who want and have children, or even hating children, you’re just another human hating asshole, not an “environmental activist,” “marriage equality activist”, or whatever comforting lie you tell yourself.

Other Gay-fearing loyalists with whom I battled also tellingly made many of the same logical fallacies employed by RTAs, including pretending that exceptions nullify rules. As such they made the absurd claim that infertile couples or old couples can’t *really* be considered to be married if procreative capacity is marked as a key feature. Such nonsense exactly parallels RTAs “arguments” that women without uteruses or post-menopausal women aren’t *really* women if one points out that having female biology is a key feature of being a woman.

The readiness with which Gay-fearing loyalists fell into either misanthropic misogyny or silly, rigid, biology denying logical fallacies only served to highlight the ironclad relationship between LGB and T with respects to both cognitive architecture and political tactics.

So with respects to the burgeoning campaign to drop the T…

Alas, no.

LGBT are a lifelong marriage.


While the misogyny and irrationality of the “marriage equivocating” camp of LGBT loyalists are bad enough, reckoning with the consequences of their immaturity, particularly as reflected in their narcissism and silencing of critical dissent, is what solidified my conversion to liberal apostasy.

While the madness of RTAs have shown the deep narcissism at the heart of the current flavor of trans activism, it is erroneous to pretend that the rest of the alphabet do not also share in this self-centering value system. Trans narcissism merely reflects the extreme end of a subculture that is, frankly, rife with it.

Only those who are wholly unfamiliar with gay culture are unaware that the community, particularly the G part, has long suffered from a reputation for narcissism and superficiality. Moreover, a great many of the most incisive and incendiary criticisms of this aspect of gay culture have often come from those within the culture itself.

While some gay folks confusedly believe that heterosexual couples have no business lobbing similar critiques because they are allegedly “outside” of the culture, this is, frankly, nonsense. Culture is a collective enterprise, and there is not a single responsible, mature adult that I know who is not deeply concerned by the level of narcissism in American culture and the negative impact it has on individual and collective well-being.

Therefore, that one’s own loved ones may be caught in a subculture that is too frequently dedicated to such narcissism *is* rightly cause for personal concern. And, given the bleed-through and blending of straight and gay culture, the thoughtful social observer is well within her rights to ask who is influencing whom and how, and question what the effects of such influences are, for better and worse.

Indeed, the primary reason why I have chosen to leave the LGBT movement behind is due to a realization that they are actually as guilty of the dangerous, fascist silencing of dissent and unpopular opinions as the RTAs and right wing fascists they so frequently accused of such practices.


Just as the word “transphobe” has become a catch all slur that now amounts to “someone who does not uncritically believe trans dogma,” the word “homophobe,” has become a catch all slur for “someone who does not uncritically believe in LGB dogma.”

One such point of dogma decreed by the Gay god is “thou shalt not judge the sexual practices of gay men, or judge them in relation to hetero sex.”

This social taboo was created during the peak of the AIDS epidemic when actual homophobic people declared AIDS a punishment from God for participating in immoral sex acts and thus celebrated their deaths. Obviously holding such sentiments are abhorrent, and one can believe that and still remain critically aware of the association between anal sex, promiscuity, and increased STD risk.

Currently there are not one, but two antibiotic resistant STDs surfacing, gonorrhea and syphilis, and both are spreading more rapidly among gay men in the Western world, largely due to their greater promiscuity when compared to hetero couples. Moreover, the gay male community have been specifically implicated in the development of antibacterial resistant STDs in the US.

Given that we know that anal sex greatly increases the risk of STDs for women as well, it becomes a simple biological fact to state that anal sex is significantly riskier than vaginal sex when it comes to the spreading of STDs. But blaspheming the Gay god in this way by passing a value judgment on anal sex inevitably triggers the Groupthink Anti-H Warning System in Gay-fearing adherents, which effectively shuts off all ability to think critically about anything said thereafter.

In the name of not offending the Gay god we are admonished against making clear judgments and giving straight forward advice to women and girls about their own sexual health.

In the name of not shaming bisexual men, girls and women will not be cautioned against them.

In the name of not offending gay teen boys, girls will not be told that they should avoid anal sex, which is generally both unpleasant for them in addition to being far riskier.

Indeed, I have little doubt that many of the misogynsists who have read this far are mentally parsing the “real” level of increased risk from anal sex (the misogynist must always deem a woman’s concerns “hysterical” and “alarmist”), rather than recognizing that no woman has any obligation whatsoever to accept any increased risk for STDs, no matter how small, in order to placate the male ego and libido.


Given the reality that anal sex actually harms the sexual health and pleasure of most women, it is therefore not a morally neutral act when a gay man writing for a magazine focused on teenaged girls pens an article blithely promoting anal sex to girls. Especially when the article misogynistically refers to women as “non-males” and fails to even identify the clitoris in anatomical drawings, or even mention it in the article, while only passingly referencing the greatly increased STD risks.

The normalization of anal sex within straight porn shows that straight men are being influenced by the mainstreaming of gay male sexual practices, and in doing so they are tacitly buying into the “service model” of womanhood, given that anal sex in heterosexuality is overwhelmingly about the man’s desires and pleasure and only minimally about the woman’s.

In fact, research has shown that the boys who pressure girls into having anal sex due to being influenced by pornography have a total disregard for the physical comfort of their partners and even relish the fact that they are experiencing pain and discomfort.

If normalizing a sex practice between gay men in a heterosexual context makes straight men more callous towards women, then clearly gay men are a negative influence on straight men.

That all of the men involved, gay or straight, are apparently entirely unconcerned by this negative change in straight men’s sexual habits in relation to women speaks to a shared misogyny among these men.

Critically thinking blasphemers of the Gay god are entirely right to be concerned by this kind of negative influencing and dynamic on both straight boys and straight girls by the mainstreaming of the gay male lifestyle. And frankly, LGBT people who actually respect others and themselves should want no part of adding toxicity and negativity to the sexual dynamics of heterosexual couples.

If gay men have the audacity to demand that straight people stay out of their sex lives, then they must do the same and refrain from negatively influencing the sexual lives of straight people.

That the woman-hating asshole who wrote the Teen Vogue article then hid his misogyny behind accusations of “homophobia” reinforces how the childish, narcissistic, victim-centered conditioning of gay men makes them incapable of being allies to the straight women whom they expect to worship them.

While many critically conscious women have long pointed out the misogyny of the gay male community, they have frequently been marginalized by liberals for doing so, or have otherwise had their very valid concerns ignored.

Indeed, that many programmed, Gay-fearing handmaidens are inclined to reject this harsh though accurate assessment of the gay community’s influence on boys and girls simply because it is coming from a straight woman, but will embrace a critique of gay male misogyny when it comes from a gay man reflects that this kind of indoctrination has functioned as just another tool in the arsenal of patriarchal mind-control weapons deployed my sexist men against women.

As such, at this point, after observing the maneuvering of the LGBT community for the better part of 30 years, and their total unwillingness to engage in even the barest level of self-critique and self-awareness, I have concluded that the movement is in fact intentionally misogynistic, and is by design a destructive influence on heterosexual people and their relationships.

As a heterosexual woman, I refuse to participate in my own oppression, or the corruption of the sexuality of heterosexual boys and girls, by supporting this misogynistic movement.


In addition to being a shit show of misogyny, the LGBT movement is also “problematic” when examined from a critical race perspective, though this accusation is often even less acknowledged than that of misogyny.

It takes a certain amount of social and economic privilege to disappear or demote the importance of marriage as a solid foundation for establishing a healthy family. Indeed, it is the most socially and economically vulnerable children who are the most harmed by single parenthood, and by disintegrating or unstable marriages. That the LGBT movement overlooks the importance of marriage to these communities, and why the privileging of heterosexual marriage is particularly important for these communities reflects the essentially “white privileged” nature of that movement.

The African American community in particular have long been a target of LGBT antipathy, not just because of their strongly held Christian values which has led to slow support of the idea of gay marriage, but also because of their historic resistance to having LGBT tie themselves to the black fight for civil rights.

Given the sense of entitlement that liberal whites feel to social and political support from the African American community, there is no doubt a great deal of lingering resentment that the black community did not simply fall into lockstep with the LGBT movement when it demanded it. That is, white liberals continue to resent the historic/ongoing unwillingness of many African Americans to blindly convert to worshiping the Gay god.

Given the emotional immaturity of this movement and white people more generally, it seems obvious that this racial resentment of African Americans is in part why the mostly white led LGBT community seemed particularly motivated to co-opt and, dare I say, “flaunt” their co-optation of black civil rights language and arguments in constructing their own political identity and movement.

From creating a notion of Gay Pride to mimic Black Pride, to using anti-miscegenation laws to argue for the right to same sex “marriage”, the LGBT community has a very long history of co-opting and misusing the black civil/human rights movement. Indeed, that the largest organization dedicated to LGBT rights calls itself the Human Rights Campaign and does almost no work whatsoever against racism and racial injustice adds another level of both insight and irony.

While there is obviously nothing wrong with gay people wanting to have pride in their sexual identities or secure legal protections for their committed partnerships, their co-optation of the language and symbols of the black civil rights movement has undoubtedly hurt the campaign for racial equality, in large part by obfuscating the profoundly important differences between the two movement, and by using up political and social capital.

While both black and LGBT people have been subject to marginalization, only black people have been subject to a hundreds year long campaign of systemic and institutional dehumanization, oppression and exploitation in the form of extractive economics and state sponsored terrorism.

Oppression of the sort experienced by black people is an entirely different kind of social evil than the marginalization and disapproval that gay people experience for their sexuality.

And equivocating the two has only served to minimize the damage being done to African Americans by white supremacy which inevitably undermines the sense of urgency that is required to address such a serious issue.

As such, whereas the notion of “Black Pride” is actually a conscious political act of resistance that is necessary due to the intentional dehumanization by a sadistic nation state over which black people exercise limited control, “Gay Pride” is primarily a plea for social approval and acceptance of behaviors that are largely within the control of gay people.

Similarly, while the African American community’s fight for black humanity is clearly linked to universal human goals that are intended to create a more just system that benefits all, (increasing the minimum wage, ending predatory policing, securing environmental justice, fully funding public schooling, gun control, improving healthcare for women and children, etc), the LGBT community fights for little more than access to existing institutions and the nebulous and narcissistic right to “free expression.” That it has seemingly “won” this right by restricting other people’s right to free expression via silencing tactics is yet another unfortunate irony.

Indeed, now that the LGBT movement has largely achieved their twin Big Goals of being able to openly serve in the military and marry their long time partners, one would think that they would turn the bulk of their attention to supporting those whom they so shamelessly co-opted, namely the African American community. But instead they have turned their attention to ever more fringe causes, and in so doing, burn through important political capital that could be better spent on more important issues with a larger collective impact.

That even after achieving most of their social and political goals, the LGBT community have continued to act in an unapologetically selfish and self-serving manner, and even have the audacity to complain about their growing acceptance, speaks to a more fundamental problem within the movement and culture itself, namely a profound lack of an organizing principle or value system that extends beyond themselves and their own narrowly defined self-interests.

This inability to extend the circle of concern beyond oneself speaks not only to a narcissistic mind, but an immature one as well.


I live in the United States embodied as a black woman. Given the very real danger that this puts me in, and the energy I must expend to preserve my physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual well being, I have frankly concluded that expending even an ounce of emotional energy on “supporting” a childish and selfish movement that only exploits others for its own self-serving gain is an incredibly poor use of my time, care, and intellect.

The foundation of adult relationships, and by extension, social justice advocacy, is not “unconditional love”, but rather, mutual respect.  Until the LGBT movement grows up and abandons its childishness, narcissism, misogyny and racism, it is and will remain entirely unworthy of my respect.