If the next white male spree killer releases a statement that she identifies as a differently-abled African-American female, will media analysts begin discussing the plague of female gun violence, grandiose notions of African entitlement, or how to identify future spree killers by the way they grip their (imaginary) wheelchairs?
We somehow know, right now, that the answer is "No." How long, though, until that answer becomes "Yes"?
An eldritch haze protects us, generating the unspoken understandings we have about just which definitions will be deemed pliable at which times. Yet that astounding cloud is not perfect in its predictive abilities. Near the charged edges, we face uncertainty. For example, will a man be able to defend himself from sexual harassment charges brought against him by a female subordinate by claiming that he is exclusively homosexual? That's an interesting one, because the briefly sacred nature of non-heterosexualities might possess the power to overrule the comparatively-aging western presumption of corporate female honesty. Potential conflict abounds, though. In a rational climate, such a conflict wouldn't be possible. In a twisted, partly-rational, partly-irrational climate, though, we can imagine all sorts of interesting part-rationalities that might rear their heads: one of them being that, to defend himself against the accusations, the man must not only allege, but prove his strict homosexuality.
Imagine the cross-examinations:
WITNESS: "Your honor, I am a legally certified womyn, and the defendant and I dated from December, 2027 to March, 2028. He was very sweet, interested in marriage, and excellent in bed."
DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY: "Objection! Your honor, my client only pursued Ms. Smith because he believed her to be a biological male--I mean...sorry, I mean, a born-male--born-male whom he could 'win back' from fully transitioning to womynhood!"
PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY: "Objection, your honor; as a certified womyn, Ms. Smith falls under the Mass. v. Barbara guidelines, and is, therefore, assumed to have been considered a womyn by any party with whom she had registered courtship relations since the date of her certification. Ahhhhmm, I have it here, here..."
JUDGE: "Counselor, please try to be better prepar--"
PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY: "Right here, your honor, I've got it. Sorry. It's dated June 12, 2019."
JUDGE: "Ms. Smith, is that your certification being held by Mr. Bacharach, over there?"
WITNESS: "Yes. Ahhh, your honor. Yes, that's it."
DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY: "That's irrelevant, your honor, because...my client's personal bigotry causes him to assume that womyn he meets might have been born-males, and therefore causes him to be attracted to them when that assumption is made. With Ms. Smith, he thought she might have been male, and pursued her with a homosexual interest. So there's no evidence anywhere in the record that he was, at any time, interested in womyn, such as the plaintiff, who he knew was a womyn."
JUDGE: "Counselor, the Barbara guidelines require you to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that your client had reason to assume that the witness' certificate was wrongfully issued. Or that Ms. Smith confided to him, in writing, that she had obtained the certification improperly."
DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY: "Actually, we argue that the Barbara guidelines don't apply, ah, your honor, because the First Circuit's logic in Heisenstadt makes clear that, in any case involving an avowed homosexual interest, it's a Sec. 1983 claim to assume an individual's indication-of-interest has itself been influenced by 'any federal regulatory or State statute which could intrude upon the individual's selection process,' and here, it's...ommm, here it's obvious, your honor, that the 'selection process' mentioned is the choosing of a sexual partner, in this case, Ms. Smith."
JUDGE: "Counselor, rebuttal?"
PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY: "We hadn't considered Heisenstadt as relevant to this case, honor--we request an adjournment, new hearing date, for, ah, for the purpose of demonstrating that his IOI doesn't fall under Section 1983."
WITNESS: "Oh my God, this is so stupid, he knew I was a womy--!"
PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY: "Shhh! Later, later; we nee--"
JUDGE: "You think you can bring evidence of that forward?"
PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY: "We do."
JUDGE: "Very well, there'll be a--"
DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY: "Objection! Your honor! Your honor, this case has been postponed six times already, my client--my client is pursuing a faculty position at Sir Elton John University, and with this matter hanging over his head, the selection process will be ruined if he's maybe gonna be found an alleged oppressor a month after they hire him!"
PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY: (snorts) "For the first time ever in his straight life! Suddenly, he wants to teach LGBTQZ hist--"
DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY: "Object--!"
JUDGE: "Counselor! You will not speculate as to the defendant's inherently chosen sexuality without relevant evidence filed before this court!"
PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY: "I'm--I'm sorry, your honor. I'm sorry."
DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY: "Withdrawn."
JUDGE: "Very well. The matter is adjourned at this time. Each of you, file pleadings regarding desired hearing dates for..."
* * *
So, how far does it go? We seem to have that general sense--that protective haze, as it were--that tells us that any of the rules will be applied only to the extent that they reveal themselves to not be rules, but be arbitrary punitive tools. Doublethink, as some call it, and rightly so. If Bruce wants to be a woman, that's fine, but if Rachel wants to be black, that's not fine--that sort of thing. Easy. Yet, what happens if two black women disagree over whether or not Rachel has, herself, become black? Or if they disagree over whether she was always black? Which one of them is racist, which one of them is sexist, and which one of them is an ignorant bigoted relic of an age best forgotten?
These kinds of arguments seem predictable and ridiculous, but that's only because we're at this particular point of the slippery slope, now. For example, if you extend the vote to those who don't own land--who don't own a piece of the country that's theoretically being managed by said vote--then the slippery slope has already begun. Similarly, if you extend the vote to people not eligible for the military draft, or if you deny the vote to people convicted of a felony, what any longer justifies "the vote"? In the former case, the Heinleinian citizenship rationalization is removed, and in the latter, how are the people ever to vote out politicians who pass unjust laws, if the breaking of said unjust laws disqualifies one from voting? Denial of the franchise to felons automatically makes peaceful revolution impossible, just as extending it to non-combatants makes democracy arbitrary.
It's mandatory to ignore due process for swarthy males, both citizens and non-citizens, accused of one type of crimen exceptum, and it's equally mandatory to ignore due process for white male citizens accused of another type of crimen exceptum, and at the same time, it's acceptable for some boundaries to be crossed where appropriate. Boundaries of sex and sexuality can be crossed to great public acclaim. Many have lamented that boundaries of race can't yet be crossed, but they're way behind on the news. For a long time, Europeans have been able to become Amerindians and Hispanics, and Hispanics and Amerindians have been able to become European. Professor Dolezal was a pioneer of sorts, but she was at least second in line behind Michael Jackson, who pretty successfully became white. The European/Amerindian gap has long ago been crossed, even if the European/African one hasn't yet been made with 100% acceptance.
It isn't futurism to discuss transracialism; Euros and Hispanics and Amerindians have been transracial on paper, and in practice, for well over a hundred years. (Actually thousands, but hey, for the purposes of modern commentary, just say "a hundred.") By the same token, "trans" sexuals and LGBTQZs--in reasonable parlance, "human beings doing whatever"--have been switching public and private labels for the sake of convenience for much longer than that.
Many have crowed that the assaults on language, upon rationality, have become so silly that "the system" will surely now break under its own weight. After all, once the silent majority realizes how insane "leftists" are for saying that apples are oranges, and that drugged and mutilated men are women, there will be some kind of cultural pushback. Maybe after a collapse of some kind, but a pushback nonetheless, in which nature reasserts itself.
Like the beaver's dam, or the human's nuclear waste barrels, though, this is nature. A bunch of people turning themselves into empty spectacle is as traditional as marble columns and stoicism. Metaphysically, it's little different than some closeted pedophile moneychanger putting on a golden hat and accepting donations. If a burnt village is justice, then bring on the chicks with dicks.
Reality is, itself, the slippery slope. Sure, there are loads of assholes out there who are always doing the mean thing, be it clubbing the person who sodomizes the willing, or clubbing the person who runs from sodomy. There are always people destroying the means of communication and understanding--people who want to destroy the meaning of "good," or "evil," or "man," or "woman;" people who want to make it impossible to say anything different. Eon after eon, though, they fail. Even under total Newspeak, in total isolation, a single mind can still think up something true. And that, even by itself, is the victory over all that comes before or after. Any light is all light.