PC Dogma Is Fervently Believed

(This is part of a series on PC Dogma. For the main page click here)

The term “dogma” contains an element of certainty. This means that dogmatic beliefs are not to be nominally held. Fundamentalist Christians don’t believe heaven is an instructive story, or that it might be real; they believe that it is real. They base their lives around belief in that fact.

The rules of PC dogma are trusted with a similar degree of certainty.

A quick example. The University of New Hampshire put out a handbook for students which deemed the word “American” to be “problematic”. So if you’re discussing the relative costs of NATO, you can’t ask if the Americans are contributing enough, because that somehow disparages people in South America.

This is clearly a symbolic move. No one thinks this will actually improve the lot of folks in South America. But it shows how much the university is certain of PC rules (more oppressed groups deserve favorable treatment, word policing is valid, offensiveness can be objectively defined).

They are willing to eat the obvious costs (alienation of folks who identify as “American”, inhibited speech and discussion, etc) in pursuit of much more detached and theoretical outcomes. Outcomes which could only be expected with a strong belief in PC dogma.

Another university declared that a room with filled with mostly white people is itself a microaggression. The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign defined numerous racial microaggressions, and they somehow reached this extreme result.

A group of people sitting in a classroom would not seem to constitute an act of aggression. It does not ring true on an innate level and there is also no purely logical way to get there. The way one arrives at this conclusion is by believing, and believing fervently, in a number of rules.

These rules include “racial minorities are more vulnerable than whites,” and “offensive actions can be objectively defined in a prospectively useful way,” and “any issues white people feel as a result of being labelled aggressors simply for existing is a non-factor”.

A university would not declare congregations of certain races to be inappropriate based on nominally held beliefs. This course of action is so repulsive to American values that it could only be justified through zealously held beliefs.

The example I’ll leave you with is one of the most disturbing manifestations of PC dogma. A middle-aged man left his wife and children after deciding that he wasn’t a middle-aged man, but was instead a 6-year-old girl. Leaving your seven children and their single mother to fend for themselves has moral implications, but this man clearly has mental health issues.

There is scientific evidence supporting the notion of transsexuality. Brain scans sometimes show the neurological layout of a trans individual as more closely resembling the gender they identify with. There is no such evidence for trans-agism.

In fact, it does not comport with modern views of medicine. The physiological structure of adult and child brains are massively different. We can look at his brain and see that it is functioning like that of an adult. He has the fully developed prefrontal cortex that children lack, etc.

PC dogma provided cover for his decision to abandon the family, but what is more disturbing is that he found “adoptive parents”. And most telling, they allow their grandchildren to play with this disturbed individual.

These people are facilitating his delusion because they hold extreme beliefs in PC dogma.

I wouldn’t want my children to play with any person whom I know to have severe mental issues. Perhaps some unexpected rage might injure the children or maybe he’ll touch them inappropriately, who knows.

But beyond that, this isn’t just some wacky adult playing with the kids, the children are told that this middle-aged man actually is a six-year-old girl.

That will likely confuse their development. We don’t know what the long-term effect will be, but with such uncertainty it is reckless to expose children to that risk.

There is no scientific basis on which to believe this middle-aged man’s story. There is clear risk of harm to the grandchildren. Overcoming those two factors requires a very strong, quasi-religious belief in PC dogma.

Adherents believe in PC dogma so fervently that they find it problematic to say what country you’re from, they find mostly white crowds inappropriate, and they allow mentally ill middle-aged men to “play” with their grandchildren.

Adherents adhere.