In affectionate remembrance of Australian Cricket which died today on the 8th of August 2019 with the announcement of Cricket Australia’s transgender policy. Deeply lamented by a large circle of sorrowing friends and acquaintances. RIP.
PS: The body will be cremated and the ashes taken to the Sydney Mardi Gras.
But don’t despair, even though your 14 year-old daughter may now face a barrage of bouncers from a pubescent mix between Jeff Thompson and Carlotta, replete with emergent moustache and the largest box in the dressing room, which may be freely shared around after the pre-game communal showers, look to the bright side instead. I invite you to celebrate the Tardis of opportunities that now befall all of us down the rabbit hole of the intersectionalista’s perverse worldview.
Any fair-minded individual must now concede that if genetics, biology and sex play no role in gender then there is no credible argument that it can play a role in race and ethnicity and therefore both are open slather. And with that in mind, I am looking forward to the flood of self-identifying Aboriginals ready to take up their place in the prestigious Australian Aboriginal Cricket Team. I know the mere suggestion will have the social engineers of the so-called progressive left in a flap of such magnitude it may alter El Nino patterns for decades henceforth. The idea that such a sacred cow could be crucified on the inevitable alter of the impending post-modernist implosion is the anathema that more than any other highlights the intellectual fraud that is intersectionality.
Race, which has been hijacked from biology by the incorrigible humanities, is generally defined now as a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities. Leftist social engineers have taken it upon themselves through proclamation more than any convincing science that evolutionary genetic differences due to geographical isolation will not be permitted as anything other than a thought crime. Likewise, ethnicity is defined as a social phenomenon of shared cultural identity. As you can already see from these definitions, and the very same way they are applied to the insectionalista’s view of gender, the exclusivity of Aboriginality is on shaky ground indeed.
Add to this that the biological basis for the differences in race are isolated to a few variations in individual segments of DNA, while for gender it is the far more profound differences at the chromosomal level and one can easily make the case that, in a post-modern world, race and ethnicity are nothing more than a choice, as it has now become for gender.
And let us not pretend that we are not already at the precipice of that social contagion. One need not look past US Democrat and Presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren, euphemistically referred to as Pocahontas by current President Donald Trump to see even at a possible 1:1024 ratio of Cherokee Indian genetic makeup, full self-identification as a Cherokee is entirely possible and profitable. Warren leveraged off her self-proclamation as a Cherokee Indian and the requisite victimhood narrative that accompanies all aspects of identity politics right through her downtrodden and oppressed career as a lowly paid academic and lawyer.
Noel Pearson was at pains to point out recently at the Garma festival that constitutional recognition of Aboriginals was not race-based per se but tied to indigeneity. But again, we run into the same conundrum when viewed through the lens of intersectionality. No individual currently living and born in Australia can claim greater indigeneity than any other contemporary of the same circumstance based on anything other than a hereditary link to Aboriginal race. And since we have now discovered that race and ethnicity is not defined at all by genetics and biology but rather by social construct and shared cultural identity any attempt by Aboriginal Australians to differentiate their race and indigeneity otherwise would be a logical nail in the coffin of fluid gender identity. As it now stands it is now perfectly acceptable for a person (whose every living nucleated cell contains either one of nature’s two predominant binary manifestations of XX or XY chromosomes) to choose, on feelings alone, to identify as the polar opposite gender of their biological reality. In the name of consistent umpiring, any attempt to dissuade people similarly compelled to identify as Aboriginal would be discrimination of the highest order.
If Aboriginals are to claim uniqueness, then on what basis can it be that it cannot also be owned by someone else from a post-modern purview? As we have already seen if the intersectionalism logic is applied to race and ethnicity then it cannot be on that basis. If it’s on indigeneity, and that is defined as emanating from a place or ‘country’, then I and my children and their grandfather and their grandfathers’ grandfather fit that definition. If it’s based on some connection to the cultural practices of a pre-modern hunter-gatherer society, well, we all ultimately share that story. Those who lament the obvious impetus of division that constitutional recognition to Aboriginals implies may now take heart that we can all jump on the self-identified Aboriginal bandwagon to share in the spoils. Any attempt to stand in the way is discrimination of the same magnitude that has been supposedly consigned to history by Cricket Australia’s new policy on transgenderism.
So perhaps we can thank Cricket Australia for taking us one extra step along this journey of social nihilism. The next logical step, of course, is species fluidity. And even I might get a baggy green in the Australian Goldfish Cricket Team.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.