Wokeism

[Emil El Zapato]

When my dearly beloved and meanwhile sadly departed sister Kelly was still part of this mortal realm, she told me — and she was quite upset about it — that it had actually been proposed in the US Congress by an LBGTQ+ activist, so apparently there's more than one kookaboo who thinks it's okay.



Hmm... There might be hope for you after all. Maybe we'll be able to cure you of your Wokemonastry™ — yes, that was not a word earlier, but it is now.

Do you approve of the sledgehammer idea? If so, I'll pass it on to my ex that I picked up another vote.

[Aragorn]

Do you approve of the sledgehammer idea? If so, I'll pass it on to my ex that I picked up another vote.

No, absolutely not. That's disgusting.

I would have used a mallet instead.

[Emil El Zapato]

No, absolutely not. That's disgusting.

I would have used a mallet instead.

yeah, mallets are cool... I'll keep it in mind, if ever...

[Octopus Garden]

I think being fair and kind to all kinds of people is a great idea, but special treatment that so frustrates the majority, is not a good idea. I am speaking here of trans women who have not had bottoms surgery competing at a high level on swim teams. Their female team mates have to essentially have a guy walking around naked in the change room.

Parts of the trans issue are completely valid, but the more extreme ideas seem to a a psy-op designed to keep us distracted from class issues. The fact that so many people have no homes and in the US, no healthcare at all, and struggle survive on minimum wage is a much more important than the "pressing issues" coming out of the extreme woke community.

I would fight to the death to honor a trans person's right to fair employment, food, livable income and a roof over their head-- but a right to compete in sports in any way they desire, with attendant change room problems?...absolutely hard NO.

The outrage many feel is proportionate to the desire of string pullers to deflect away from things that matter to all of us, not just a small sub type of humanity.

[Emil El Zapato]

I think being fair and kind to all kinds of people is a great idea, but special treatment that so frustrates the majority, is not a good idea. I am speaking here of trans women who have not had bottoms surgery competing at a high level on swim teams. Their female team mates have to essentially have a guy walking around naked in the change room.

Parts of the trans issue are completely valid, but the more extreme ideas seem to a a psy-op designed to keep us distracted from class issues. The fact that so many people have no homes and in the US, no healthcare at all, and struggle survive on minimum wage is a much more important than the "pressing issues" coming out of the extreme woke community.

I would fight to the death to honor a trans person's right to fair employment, food, livable income and a roof over their head-- but a right to compete in sports in any way they desire, with attendant change room problems?...absolutely hard NO.

The outrage many feel is proportionate to the desire of string pullers to deflect away from things that matter to all of us, not just a small sub type of humanity.

true, I never even give such things a 2nd thought but I will go with your opinion, it is balanced and not born in a reflex hate of everything. It kind of pisses me off, that I can't think of anything that really defends the <derogatory label> efforts. They are unreasonable on the surface of things. We can blame Renee Richards.

[Emil El Zapato]

Here's an old joke: "The Russian Men's Olympic Team failed the committee's gender test so they were reclassified as East German women"

Decades later, Renée Richards' breakthrough is as important as ever
At an anarchic US Open, the transgender tennis player made a pioneering point.

By
Steve Tignor
Published Mar 31, 2021

Throughout Women's History Month, TENNIS.com will be highlighting some of the most significant achievements and moments that make our sport what it is today.

As Renée Richards walked through the winding, Tudor-lined lanes of Forest Hills, people from the neighborhood gathered around her to wish her luck. After seeing the ophthalmologist’s picture in the newspapers for months, the locals of Queens knew where she was going—the West Side Tennis Club—and the magnitude of what she was about to do.

It was August 1977, the closing weeks of the notorious Summer of Sam in New York City. Over three harrowing months, the crumbling metropolis had been rocked by terrorizing riots, a chaotic blackout and the frantic search for a serial killer. As autumn mercifully approached, though, tennis became the talk of the town, and Richards was, for the moment, the world’s most talked-about athlete.

In 1953, Richards had entered the men’s draw at the U.S. Nationals under the name Richard Raskind. Twenty-four years later—and two years after having sexual-reassignment surgery and changing her name—Renée was on her way to play her first match as a woman at the same event, now known as the US Open. To make it there, she had weathered a chromosome test, boycotts by her fellow players, the scrutiny of the media, a ban by the sport’s officials and a lawsuit to overturn that ban.

But Forest Hills wasn’t just the home of the Open; it was also Richards’ home. These tree-lined lanes were where young Richard had grown up, where he had learned to play tennis—and where he discovered as a child that he had a second, female self inside him, fighting to get out.

“People crowded ’round,” Richards recalled of her walk to West Side that day, “wishing me well on the same streets where I had skulked 30 years before, wearing my sister’s clothes.”

Now, at 43, she felt free.

“There was tennis to be played,” Richards said. “My heart lightened at the prospect. I was about to do the thing that had saved me so many times before—and on the greatest stage in the world, I would do it as Renée.”



Richards’ walk through the gates at West Side was the culmination of a 12-month whirlwind that had upended her life and her sport, and left her playing, as she put it, “tennis in a fishbowl.”

She had taken the plunge into that fishbowl in August 1976, when she entered her first pro tournament as a woman at the Orange Lawn Tennis Club in New Jersey. There had never been a debut quite like it. The Rolls Royce that took her to the grounds before her opening match was greeted by dozens of fans, autograph seekers and celebrity hounds. As the car approached the clubhouse, the mob surged toward it. Inside, Richards sank down in her seat. Was this private person ready for the public life that awaited her?

Just one year before, Dr. Richard Raskind, an accomplished athlete who had captained the men’s team at Yale two decades earlier, had undergone sexual-reassignment surgery. Soon after, as Dr. Renée Richards, she moved from New York to Newport Beach, CA, to start a new life. But there was one thing she couldn’t leave behind: her conspicuous skill at tennis.

After impressing the members at her new club, Richards agreed to enter a tournament in nearby La Jolla. A woman in the audience made the connection between the tall lefty who was mowing down the competition, and a story she heard about a tennis-playing doctor who moved west after having a sex change.

When a TV station subsequently—and erroneously—ran a report that Richards was a man masquerading as a woman, she became front-page news. Richards set the record straight at a press conference. The attention died down, and the paparazzi moved on. But one set of reports continued to irk her.

“Officials in the governing bodies of tennis,” Richards wrote in an autobiography, Second Serve, “were quoted as saying that I would not be allowed to participate in major championships for women because of my past as Richard Raskind.”

Richards had never been an activist, but after her story broke she received an avalanche of mail, many from minority communities, urging her to play. “The whole world seemed to be looking for me to be their Joan of Arc,” she said.

After some prodding, Richards decided to take on the role. She wanted “to prove that transsexuals as well as other persons fighting social stigmas can hold their heads up high.”

Among the letters Richards received was one from an old friend, Gene Scott. The former pro was angry at how Richards was being treated, so he invited her to enter the tournament he ran in New Jersey. When she accepted, 23 female players boycotted.

At the Orange Lawn Tennis Club that August, Scott was there to help Richards out of the Rolls Royce and through the crowd of gawkers. The clubhouse offered a respite from the masses, but she wasn’t free of the press. To get to her practice court, Richards slipped out a back window and down a fire escape.

By the time her match began, she was punch-drunk and exhausted. “Don’t fall down, Renée,” was all she could think.

Knowing that Howard Cosell was calling the match for a national television audience didn’t help. The only thing that did was the fact that her opponent, Kathy Beene, was even more nervous. Beene double-faulted 11 times, and Richards won in just 47 minutes.

Richards was front-page news again, though sportswriters didn’t know what to make of this new brand of athlete.

“At first, it seemed like a put-on,” Sports Illustrated wrote. “A transsexual tennis player? A 6'2" former football end in frilly panties and gold hoop earrings pounding serves past defenseless girls?”

UPI, in its report on her first-round match, described Richards as a “tall and attractive 42-year-old ophthalmologist.”

Later that night in Manhattan, Richards took pride in what she had accomplished when she saw the next day’s Daily News. As her fellow New Yorkers leaned out of cab windows to shout their encouragement, she read a headline that could have been written for Jimmy Connors or Joe Namath: RENEE ROLLS IN NEW JERSEY OPENER

Richards’ victory took her to a dizzying new place in her public life, but it also brought her back home. The night before her match against Beene, she paid a surprise visit to her father, David, at the family’s house in Forest Hills. She was relieved when he greeted her as if nothing had changed. A few days later, David Raskind paid a surprise visit of his own when he showed up at Orange Lawn for Renée’s third match.

Tennis had been at the heart of their relationship. Years before, they had bonded during hitting sessions at the Sunrise Club in Queens, as both tried to escape the stressful intensity of life at home. There, young Richard was dominated by his mother and his older sister, who dressed him as a girl. By 9, he had begun to dress himself that way.

As a teen, Richard came across Man Into Woman, the autobiography of Lili Elbe, a transgender who was portrayed by Eddie Redmayne in The Danish Girl. Elbe’s story rang true for Raskind. From his teens through his 30s, his psyche was the site of a prolonged battle between his outer male self, and an inner female persona who was constantly fighting to get the upper hand.

“During this period,” Richards said, “I probably would not have survived without tennis. Athletics was the one constant in an otherwise uncertain world.”

On the surface, Richard Raskind was a success. He excelled at sports, graduated from Yale, became a surgeon, married and had a son, Nick. Underneath, though, he felt that he might “go mad” if he “continued masquerading as Dick.” At 40, Raskind underwent the three-and-half-hour procedure that set Renée free for good.

When Richards’ run in New Jersey came to an end in the semis, against Lea Antonopolis, she thought she would repeat her breakthrough at the US Open. After all, that loss proved a woman could beat her.

Despite being certified as a woman by the state of New York, though, Richards was forced to take a chromosome test. She refused to take it at first; when she did, the result was ambiguous. After being denied entry into the 1976 US Open, Richards countered with a lawsuit.

During that time, Richards said she saw the “best and worst of women’s professional tennis.” Promoter Gladys Heldman risked WTA sanction when she invited Richards to play at her events. Billie Jean King’s World Team Tennis offered her a contract. Martina Navratilova encouraged Richards and later hired her as her coach. Others weren’t as welcoming: one opponent responded to Richards’ aces with a middle finger.

Help came from an unsavory, if effective, corner: Roy Cohn. The legendarily vicious consigliere to Joseph McCarthy and Donald Trump took Richards’ case. The tennis authorities never stood a chance. With a supportive affidavit from King, Richards won her suit.

Yet that wasn’t the end of the controversy. At the 1977 US Open, Richards drew Virginia Wade in the first round. Asked how she would feel if she lost to Richards, Wade said, “I’d demand that she be tested.” Wade said she was joking and was misquoted, but did admit she wasn’t “comfortable with the whole idea.” By the time the match started before a capacity stadium crowd, Richards and Wade weren’t speaking.

Wade, the ’77 Wimbledon champion, needn’t have worried; she beat a nervous Richards, 6–1, 6–4. But Richards settled down in doubles and reached the final with Betty Ann Stuart. She would eventually settle into the tour as well, climb to No. 20 in the world and coach Navratilova to No. 1. Richards found a home in women’s tennis, playing the game that had saved her so many times before.

Now 83, Richards lives in upstate New York, far from the spotlight. Controversial in 1977, she is hailed as a pioneer in 2017, a time when the world has watched Bruce Jenner become Caitlyn Jenner.

Richards remains a reluctant symbol. She has said she sees her gender status as a “part of life,” not a “way of life.”

“I am first and last an individual.”

Spoken like a tennis player. If Richards is a hero to the LGBT community, she should also be one to players and fans. She made the Open era live up to its name by forcing the game to welcome anyone with the courage to be herself.

[Diabolical Boids]

Casual observers lurk here so a disclaimer:

I have observed no one in this forum express any hatred of anything or anyone associated to Trans or LGBTQ .

The LGBTQ community has dissociated itself against groomers and child mutilation and disagree with it as much as anyone here.
http://https://www.gaysagainstgroomers.com/

To my knowledge no one has and I trust if someone did they would be dealt with accordingly by administration. Yet that is the bait & switch tactic of wokeism. And wokeism is rooted in gaslighting. It's not awareness nor awakening. It's just a grammatically bad shroud for gaslighting.

However many people here have expressed abhorrence of child mutilation, indoctrination, and legalized medical child trafficking.

Yet I've seen support for those loathsome constructs and bending over backwards to justify them while blaming that innocent only of hating. Of course they hate the idea of child mutilation. Their only crime is disagreement which is only a crime in the mind of the woke.

It is perfectly understandable that people despise child predators and those who support them. What is more difficult to comprehend is why people who are allegedly more morally elevated, and never fail to remind you they are more morally elevated than everyone else, would support child predation for any reason.

Wokeism is delusion in that it must imagine something in order to speak or act against it because what they speak of does not exist. It's imagined.

They aren't activists because there is nothing to act against. It's in their imagination. They are tilting at Windmills while flailing about themselves. They must imagine some moral failure or an incorrect feeling in order to have an opportunity to attack you. Not that you actually did anything. You thought or felt something that disagrees or rejects their world view. An incorrect feeling is only a crime in their worldview. The worldview of the thought police.

Because their ID is wrapped up in that worldview, to reject it is to reject them which they feel as hate. They hate themselves for not being acceptable or agreeable because they can't get anyone to agree with their unstable and imaginary worldview. But supporting things like child trafficking is hardly going to make them acceptable.

A wokester must imagine what everyone is feeling who doesn't agree with them is hate. Not hateful actions. Any word that doesn't agree with their worldview is a hateful word. When no actual hate is present then you can assure yourself the hate is coming from them. People who hate themselves feel nothing but hate and rejection from everyone else.

Why do they need your agreement so badly?

Bait and Switch. Wokeism isn't new, its always been lurking under a term called gaslighting. Gaslighting is when you constantly reframe 'reality' to make others think they are crazy. Woke is reframing reality over and over to prove that everyone is a hater.

Using mass child mutilation as an example: The aim is to get you to say it's okay in some instances or otherwise get you to relent just a little bit. Then they will turn on you and turn your agreement on you so they can finally have a justifiable reason to attack you.


See how that works?

That is the ultimate goal, is seeking revenge against you for something you never did. Someone is guilty of messing them up in the head but a 1000 percent of the time it's not you.

Reparations anyone? That's the woke way of reparations. They need a pound of flesh; it doesn't have to be the pound of flesh of the ones who were guilty.


Thats how the totally at odds concepts of Diversity and Cultural Appropriation came about.

First they clamored about inclusion, and we needed all this diversity to be inclusion. We needed to immerse ourselves in the cultures and flavors of everyone on the planet. So we did, we went to Pow Wows, put feathers in our hair, and celebrated Kwanza and ate Lebanese food. And while we are having a GOOD TIME wading through the cultures of others and reconnecting with people we normally would not, the woke (who cannot connect in any healthy way )object to their own idea and start screaming we are stealing people's cultures. WE are all colonialists all over again.

See how that works.

[Emil El Zapato]

lol, uh huh sure...

[Aragorn]

Casual observers lurk here so a disclaimer:

I have observed no one in this forum express any hatred of anything or anyone associated to Trans or LGBTQ .

[...]

To my knowledge no one has and I trust if someone did they would be dealt with accordingly by administration.

That is correct, yes. The Forum Rules explicitly condemn hate speech and discrimination of any kind, and we have already banned people over that.

Yet that is the bait & switch tactic of wokeism. And wokeism is rooted in gaslighting. It's not awareness nor awakening. It's just a grammatically bad shroud for gaslighting.

You are absolutely correct. It is baiting, gaslighting and — as I said earlier — a way of talking people into a guilt trip over something they are innocent of, and potentially then on top of that, have the innocent be punished by law over those very same things they're innocent of, all because the Wokemons™ have self-acceptance issues, as well as such a neurotic and compulsive hatred for the real world that they'd rather change the whole world than learn to accept things (and themselves) for what they are.

The Wokemons™' idea of Inclusion™ is in fact quite an exclusion, because they arrogantly carry their own forms of discrimination on their sleeve. For instance, not only is it now more or less a requirement for just about every Star Trek series to address LGBTQ+ issues, and it is apparently also perfectly normal for participants of the Gay Pride parades to be fucking each other's brains out in front of children and other innocent bystanders — I don't think anyone would ever manage to get away with that as a heterosexual — but "Oh my Flying Spaghetti Monster!" if someone were to ever have the audacity of smoking a cigarette on camera again.

So in my book, "Inclusion"™ is just New Speak in the style of George Orwell's "Nineteen Eight-Four". Gotta love those double standards...

[Emil El Zapato]

That is correct, yes. The Forum Rules explicitly condemn hate speech and discrimination of any kind, and we have already banned people over that.



You are absolutely correct. It is baiting, gaslighting and — as I said earlier — a way of talking people into a guilt trip over something they are innocent of, and potentially then on top of that, have the innocent be punished by law over those very same things they're innocent of, all because the Wokemons™ have self-acceptance issues, as well as such a neurotic and compulsive hatred for the real world that they'd rather change the whole world than learn to accept things (and themselves) for what they are.

The Wokemons™' idea of Inclusion™ is in fact quite an exclusion, because they arrogantly carry their own forms of discrimination on their sleeve. For instance, not only is it now more or less a requirement for just about every Star Trek series to address LGBTQ+ issues, and it is apparently also perfectly normal for participants of the Gay Pride parades to be fucking each other's brains out in front of children and other innocent bystanders — I don't think anyone would ever manage to get away with that as a heterosexual — but "Oh my Flying Spaghetti Monster!" if someone were to ever have the audacity of smoking a cigarette on camera again.

So in my book, "Inclusion"™ is just New Speak in the style of George Orwell's "Nineteen Eight-Four". Gotta love those double standards...

Here is a serious question: Star Trek series. Haven't historically they actually addressed those issues anyway? So what has the series done to address such a damning faux pas?

I'm curious about something that I might be overlooking and it might be a critical difference, is Wokemonism rightist or leftist. I do remember the hysteria regarding the 'Gay Teletubby'. I thought it was the stupidest thing I had ever heard.

Actually, the conspiracy theorist in me makes me wonder if it isn't rightists masquerading as leftists

[Diabolical Boids]

Going after an imaginary entity for having an imaginary orientation and mindset is an apt example of wokeism. You'd think someone would take a lesson from it instead of emulating it.

Wokeism is not strictly relegated to the right or left but in this political cycle the extremist left makes better use of it. Irony is: as the woke use others, they in turn are being used by politics.

That's the energy that woke carries itself on. Using others for to empower self-gratify themselves or the "emotional and mental rape of the accused."

No wonder people find the woke abhorrent.

If one will attempt psychological rape of an adult, it's well understood they would target children who are more vulnerable to emotional manipulation and put up the least amount of resistance.

Regardless of what side of the aisle they are on its abhorrent.

[Diabolical Boids]

For instance, not only is it now more or less a requirement for just about every Star Trek series to address LGBTQ+ issues, and it is apparently also perfectly normal for participants of the Gay Pride parades to be fucking each other's brains out in front of children and other innocent bystanders — I don't think anyone would ever manage to get away with that as a heterosexual — but "Oh my Flying Spaghetti Monster!" if someone were to ever have the audacity of smoking a cigarette on camera again.

None of that advances the genre of any given movie unless it's entirely about being gay and lesbian. That's a genre on its own.

It's still supposed to be about art. And its forced and unnecessary. People don't want to be reminded of politics and social issues with every damn thing they read or watch. It's forced, its plopped in there not to enhance characterization, or plot, but to satisfy social justice which is never satisfied.

Adding every flipping culture and orientation to a movie for no reason but to make sure everyone gets a medal drags the movie down, entirely dismisses the concept of 'art' and is just done to make a small majority of people who may not even be gay or trans themselves feel good even if it risks limiting the actors, the character and the plot and art itself.

In science fiction gay should be implied, not beaten over the head with and only if it advances the plot in some sci fi way. Being gay isn't a 'plot' or a character or even a new concept. It's been done before just in a way that is subtle and not forced or obvious. But for reasons of social justice, wokeism and political reasons it's forced into shows, and it shows. Orientation isn't important really in any genre except for porn.

The Ellen Degeneres show used to be hugely funny until it just became all about JUST being gay. Once the novelty wore off even gay people got bored. Then it stopped being funny because it was forced, political, and trying to prove a point instead of being a comedy. And then it was off the air.

People read and watch fiction to escape not have politics and social issues rammed down their throat 24/7.




I got trapped into watching one thousand old westerns from the 50's again over the weekend. They have the woke warnings before each show. They have to warn the woke that the 1950's wasn't filled with woke, extremist concepts in the 1950's and that could be frightening. Someone may be smoking. There may not be gay people represented. The ideas of Indians back then may have been different than today. They may not be disenfranchised victims but scalping people and bearing weapons. Someone may not be eating organic or vegan. They might be a fight. A real fight, not calling people a hater.

Or men may be calling women "Ma'am" and treating them with deference or helping them down from their horses. The bad old days that never existed when John Wayne was not a feminized man, Marshall Matt Dillion wasn't in gay relationship with Chester, and Miss Kitty didn't transition into a pony none of which advances the genre of Westerns. What a nightmare! How painful and none of it really even happened.

So in my book, "Inclusion"™ is just New Speak in the style of George Orwell's "Nineteen Eight-Four". Gotta love those double standards...

Well I'd like to read that. Where is it?

[Aragorn]

Casual observers lurk here so a disclaimer:

I have observed no one in this forum express any hatred of anything or anyone associated to Trans or LGBTQ .

[...]

To my knowledge no one has and I trust if someone did they would be dealt with accordingly by administration.

You are absolutely correct. It is baiting, gaslighting and — as I said earlier — a way of talking people into a guilt trip over something they are innocent of, and potentially then on top of that, have the innocent be punished by law over those very same things they're innocent of, all because the Wokemons™ have self-acceptance issues, as well as such a neurotic and compulsive hatred for the real world that they'd rather change the whole world than learn to accept things (and themselves) for what they are.

The Wokemons™' idea of Inclusion™ is in fact quite an exclusion, because they arrogantly carry their own forms of discrimination on their sleeve. For instance, not only is it now more or less a requirement for just about every Star Trek series to address LGBTQ+ issues, and it is apparently also perfectly normal for participants of the Gay Pride parades to be fucking each other's brains out in front of children and other innocent bystanders — I don't think anyone would ever manage to get away with that as a heterosexual — but "Oh my Flying Spaghetti Monster!" if someone were to ever have the audacity of smoking a cigarette on camera again.

So in my book, "Inclusion"™ is just New Speak in the style of George Orwell's "Nineteen Eight-Four". Gotta love those double standards...

Here is a serious question: Star Trek series. Haven't historically they actually addressed those issues anyway?

Yes, but it had so far always been featured in a natural way — I don't know the titles of the exact episodes, but I can describe a couple of episodes from TNG, DS9 and ENT that addressed gender- and/or sexuality-related issues in one way or another.

Given that the franchise revolved around (chiefly) humanity's encounters with other species and cultures, addressing those issues was part of Gene Roddenberry's vision of what the future would look like. But it never felt like I was watching LGBTQ+ propaganda.

Here's an example... Apart from the Star Trek franchise, Gene Roddenberry was also working on yet another science-fiction series, called "Earth: Final Conflict" — he died before the series could be broadcast, but then his wife Majel Barrett took over production — which featured an alien species called Taylons, who were either asexual or androgynous; their reproductive system was never discussed on-screen, although it was hinted that they did effectively reproduce in one way or another, because one of the alien characters mentions that said character's nemesis (who is of the same species) is in fact their child.

All of the alien characters were portrayed by female actors, their voices electronically lowered to sound somewhere in between a male and a female voice. Considering that the English language has no gender-neutral single-person pronoun for a sapient being, the alien characters were all referred to — by humans as well as by themselves — as "he"/"him"/"his" when using English.

I have watched that series — or at least, insofar as it was being broadcast here, because it was on a commercial network and they were quite notorious for suddenly dropping a series and never picking up with it again, and so I've only seen a few seasons — but never did I have the impression that something in the way of a political agenda was being pushed on me. It was actually an enjoyable series.

So what has the series done to address such a damning faux pas?

Well, I can give you several examples of that. First of all, the J.J. Abrams reboot of the franchise had Hikaru Sulu depicted as gay, even though Sulu's sexual orientation had never been explicitly addressed in the original series, and he was even hinted at being a heterosexual — I know: shocking, right? For starters, in one of the movies featuring the original cast — I'm not sure anymore but I think it may have been in "The Undiscovered Country" — Sulu was revealed to have a biological daughter, and in one of the TOS episodes, Sulu goes berserk and starts running around the ship with a rapier in his hand, whereby he says to Nyota Uhura, "I will protect you, fair maiden", to which she in turn responds with "Sorry, neither."

Now, it is true that George Takei, the actor who played Hikaru Sulu in the original series and in the movies featuring the TOS cast, is himself gay, but that's his personal life and it has nothing to do with the character he was playing on the set of Star Trek. Furthermore, George Takei has himself objected to the decision of the scriptwriters of the J.J. Abrams reboot to make Sulu gay. He had no objections to the introduction of a gay character to the cast, but he thought it was a terrible move to turn Sulu into that gay character.

In a similar vein, the character Annika Hansen — the human name of former Borg drone Seven of Nine from VOY and PIC ("Star Trek: Picard") — was initially most definitely heterosexual, but the LGBTQ+ community liked her so much that they petitioned the producers of PIC into making Seven a lesbian, which they did. And of course, they then also had to give her a lesbian love interest, which is why Picard's former First Officer on board the USS Star Gazer, Rafaela "Raffi" Musiker — who, as shown in the first season of PIC, has a son — was also scripted to be a lesbian, even though that too was not originally part of the plan.

Then there is DIS ("Star Trek: Discovery"), in which the producers really went overboard with the Inclusive™ agenda, so that the USS Discovery not only has a (male) gay couple among its crew, but the series now also features both transgender actors and so-called non-binary actors — all introduced in the same season — who then also play trans- and non-binary (or androgynous) characters as part of the regular cast.

Lastly, the above is also repeated in several of the newer fan-produced Star Trek spin-off series, including sometimes fairly explicit "making-out" scenes — far more explicit than hitherto seen in heterosexual contexts. And it's not just limited to Star Trek, because other science-fiction and fantasy franchises have been picking up on the trend to push the Inclusive™ agenda as well, in varying degrees depending on the franchise.

The "DUST" series on YouTube for instance is quite heavily promoting the Wokemon™ agenda, but it is by far not the only one. As the matter of fact, it is now much harder to find a science-fiction franchise that isn't. Even the sequel to "Independence Day" had Brent Spiner's character Dr. Okun suddenly turning out to be gay, even though there was no mention of this in the original movie, and Spiner also did not play the character as a gay man in the first movie.

I'm curious about something that I might be overlooking and it might be a critical difference, is Wokemonism rightist or leftist. I do remember the hysteria regarding the 'Gay Teletubby'. I thought it was the stupidest thing I had ever heard.

Wokemonastry™ pretends to be leftist, but as has been addressed by several posters already now, it has nothing to do with either left-wing or right-wing, and it is authoritarian in nature while disguising itself as "liberal".

If you really do feel a need to look at things from the vantage of politics, then I'd suggest you forget about the one-dimensional left-right horizon, because politics is two-dimensional; there's the left and the right, and then there's a north-south axis representing authoritarianism versus libertarianism.

[Emil El Zapato]

Yes, but it had so far always been featured in a natural way — I don't know the titles of the exact episodes, but I can describe a couple of episodes from TNG, DS9 and ENT that addressed gender- and/or sexuality-related issues in one way or another.

Given that the franchise revolved around (chiefly) humanity's encounters with other species and cultures, addressing those issues was part of Gene Roddenberry's vision of what the future would look like. But it never felt like I was watching LGBTQ+ propaganda.

Here's an example... Apart from the Star Trek franchise, Gene Roddenberry was also working on yet another science-fiction series, called "Earth: Final Conflict" — he died before the series could be broadcast, but then his wife Majel Barrett took over production — which featured an alien species called Taylons, who were either asexual or androgynous; their reproductive system was never discussed on-screen, although it was hinted that they did effectively reproduce in one way or another, because one of the alien characters mentions that said character's nemesis (who is of the same species) is in fact their child.

All of the alien characters were portrayed by female actors, their voices electronically lowered to sound somewhere in between a male and a female voice. Considering that the English language has no gender-neutral single-person pronoun for a sapient being, the alien characters were all referred to — by humans as well as by themselves — as "he"/"him"/"his" when using English.

I have watched that series — or at least, insofar as it was being broadcast here, because it was on a commercial network and they were quite notorious for suddenly dropping a series and never picking up with it again, and so I've only seen a few seasons — but never did I have the impression that something in the way of a political agenda was being pushed on me. It was actually an enjoyable series.



Well, I can give you several examples of that. First of all, the J.J. Abrams reboot of the franchise had Hikaru Sulu depicted as gay, even though Sulu's sexual orientation had never been explicitly addressed in the original series, and he was even hinted at being a heterosexual — I know: shocking, right? For starters, in one of the movies featuring the original cast — I'm not sure anymore but I think it may have been in "The Undiscovered Country" — Sulu was revealed to have a biological daughter, and in one of the TOS episodes, Sulu goes berserk and starts running around the ship with a rapier in his hand, whereby he says to Nyota Uhura, "I will protect you, fair maiden", to which she in turn responds with "Sorry, neither."

Now, it is true that George Takei, the actor who played Hikaru Sulu in the original series and in the movies featuring the TOS cast, is himself gay, but that's his personal life and it has nothing to do with the character he was playing on the set of Star Trek. Furthermore, George Takei has himself objected to the decision of the scriptwriters of the J.J. Abrams reboot to make Sulu gay. He had no objections to the introduction of a gay character to the cast, but he thought it was a terrible move to turn Sulu into that gay character.

In a similar vein, the character Annika Hansen — the human name of former Borg drone Seven of Nine from VOY and PIC ("Star Trek: Picard") — was initially most definitely heterosexual, but the LGBTQ+ community liked her so much that they petitioned the producers of PIC into making Seven a lesbian, which they did. And of course, they then also had to give her a lesbian love interest, which is why Picard's former First Officer on board the USS Star Gazer, Rafaela "Raffi" Musiker — who, as shown in the first season of PIC, has a son — was also scripted to be a lesbian, even though that too was not originally part of the plan.

Then there is DIS ("Star Trek: Discovery"), in which the producers really went overboard with the Inclusive™ agenda, so that the USS Discovery not only has a (male) gay couple among its crew, but the series now also features both transgender actors and so-called non-binary actors — all introduced in the same season — who then also play trans- and non-binary (or androgynous) characters as part of the regular cast.

Lastly, the above is also repeated in several of the newer fan-produced Star Trek spin-off series, including sometimes fairly explicit "making-out" scenes — far more explicit than hitherto seen in heterosexual contexts. And it's not just limited to Star Trek, because other science-fiction and fantasy franchises have been picking up on the trend to push the Inclusive™ agenda as well, in varying degrees depending on the franchise.

The "DUST" series on YouTube for instance is quite heavily promoting the Wokemon™ agenda, but it is by far not the only one. As the matter of fact, it is now much harder to find a science-fiction franchise that isn't. Even the sequel to "Independence Day" had Brent Spiner's character Dr. Okun suddenly turning out to be gay, even though there was no mention of this in the original movie, and Spiner also did not play the character as a gay man in the first movie.



Wokemonastry™ pretends to be leftist, but as has been addressed by several posters already now, it has nothing to do with either left-wing or right-wing, and it is authoritarian in nature while disguising itself as "liberal".

If you really do feel a need to look at things from the vantage of politics, then I'd suggest you forget about the one-dimensional left-right horizon, because politics is two-dimensional; there's the left and the right, and then there's a north-south axis representing authoritarianism versus libertarianism.

I figured you would say that but a big part of my whole fabric of reality is not merely a label..(i.e. left/right) it is about the way the human mind functions...but I think you picked a very good topic for a book.

Art is the natural habitat of the ambiguous human being, they WANT to push the boundaries and from the liberal perspective that includes LGBT+ issues. When I watch transformations such as you pointed out about Star Trek, my usual first thought is, ohh boy, here we go again. Bear in mind that any romance and/or sex shenanigans in art or print, I find a very annoying distraction from the interesting stuff. So, after I regain a sense of perspective, I concede that what is happening is just an effort to portray another facet of human experience, a routine, normal, everyday facet for many.

[Aragorn]

Art is the natural habitat of the ambiguous human being, they WANT to push the boundaries and from the liberal perspective that includes LGBT+ issues. When I watch transformations such as you pointed out about Star Trek, my usual first thought is, ohh boy, here we go again. Bear in mind that any romance and/or sex shenanigans in art or print, I find a very annoying distraction from the interesting stuff. So, after I regain a sense of perspective, I concede that what is happening is just an effort to portray another facet of human experience, a routine, normal, everyday facet for many.

The point is that this particular "routine aspect" as you call it is deliberately being shoved down everyone's throat as if nothing else exists anymore, and as if everyone will from now on be expected to also become gay/trans/whatever. Even perfectly heterosexual children are now starting to wonder about their gender identity due to the issue now being everywhere you look.

That's not art, that's mind-fuckery. And that is the neuroticism of it all. It's a minority trying to push its own neuroticism onto the majority because they need the unconditional approval and praise of the whole goddamn world — forcibly if they have to — as a substitute for their lacking self-acceptance.

The same is true with regard to the woman who was sent to jail over here for having slapped her son upside the head. Somehow the Wokemons™ feel that children are holy creatures that can do no wrong, even though there are plenty of brats out there who turn out to be completely antisocial pricks by the time they reach adolescence, and who will continue to be completely antisocial pricks as adults, all because nobody put the little fuckers in their place when they were still little — and I'm not saying that this needs to be done through physical violence or some other form of abuse, but a line has to be drawn.

The couple that lived upstairs from me before the current tenants had such a little brat. I'm not sure of his age — I think he was about 4 or 5 years old — and he would throw tantrums like you've never seen or heard before whenever he didn't get what he wanted. He would scream, bang the walls and doors with his fists and stomp his feet all over the place. And they let him, so it never occurred to him to stop doing that whenever he felt like it.

I myself have worked with children of various ages, as well as with teenagers, and I have seen what a lack of proper parenting does. Hell, there regularly are stories in the news of atrocities committed by very young teenagers, such as — not too long ago — an adult woman who was jogging through the park and who was tricked by a 13-year-old boy supposedly needing help, and then she was jumped by other boys of roughly the same age and gang-raped.

A few years ago — but still only a few years — there was the story of a group of adolescents and one or two people in their early twenties who had been bullying a mentally challenged teenager, getting him drunk and/or high, even forcing him to masturbate while they were filming it all with their smartphones, and then throwing him into the ice-cold river, where he drowned as they walked away all giddy.

Or what about a gang comprised only of teenage girls — aged 13 to 15 — who beat the shit out of several other girls of their school at the bus stop or at the station, and who even went so far as to attack and injure a male adult. And all of it filmed on smartphones and published on social media. Just like that bunch of teenage guys who drugged a teenage girl at a party and gang-raped her while she was out, all also filmed with a smartphone and published on social media.

But hey, you can't touch them, because they are children and children are sacred. Little monsters turning into snowflakes when it suits them, and into fully-blown sociopaths when the authorities aren't looking.

That's what industrialized upbringing does. They all want to have children because "babies are cute", and "the biological clock is ticking", but when push comes to shove, once those babies aren't babies anymore, they lose interest and they drop them off at a daycare center. The daycare center isn't going to raise the children "because it's not our responsibility", and the school isn't either, "because it's not our responsibility". And the parents don't, because they're too busy with their work, their extracurricular activities, and then the boob tube before bedtime. Rinse and repeat.

But a woman slaps her son upside the head and is convicted to a couple of years in prison on the charges of child abuse, "so as to set an example". Yeah, right, some example. But of what? The decay of our moral compass? Of our common sense? Of our deductive reasoning? Of our social awareness?

It is said — quite brainlessly — that children are the future. But what kind of future?