Phony Minorities and the New Gay Hell

Are girls with eating disorders an oppressed minority? I ask this question because the rexies are demanding some respect.

“. . . if you want sympathy for your ‘disease,’ you are an anorexic,” declared an activist on Rexia-World. “If you want respect and admiration for your lifestyle of choice, you are a rexie . . . Anorexics die. Rexies don’t. Have we understood the difference? This site is for us rexies, who are proud of our accomplishments, and the accomplishments that lie ahead. We will never die.”

The rexies want us to accept their alternative lifestyle choices and their alternative aesthetic criteria. “I believe in a wholly black and white world, the losing of weight, the recrimination for sins, the abnegation of the body and a life ever fasting,” declared a convert on Anorexic Nation.

“Starvation is fulfilling,” declared one rexie. “Colors become brighter, sounds sharper, odors so much more savory and penetrating that inhalation fills every fiber and pore of the body. The greatest enjoyment of food is actually found when never a morsel passes the lips.”

This may not be your notion of the enjoyment of food, but it is the opinion of someone who speaks for many other young women. Are these young women deluded or are they a social minority with perspectives a liberal society is obligated to respect?

The pro-ana (anorexic) websites boast names such as “Ana by Choice,” “Anorexic Nation,” “Totally in Control,” and “The Mirror Never Lies.” There are more than 400 of these sites where rexies solicit funds for legal battles, promote pro-ana media programs, solicit names for petitions and recruit more members. Do-gooders want to shut them down. The rexies are fighting back:

“This is a gathering point for sentient individuals who are working to cause changes to occur in body in conformity to will. There are no victims here, and maturity is measured in the acceptance of personal responsibility, not the number of birthdays survived.”

They are a society of teenage and twenty-something young women; they are an identity group. They tend to be strong-willed, Type A, alpha females who like to feel in control of their lives. They find the pro-ana websites empowering.

Their detractors argue that the rexies are leading a destructive lifestyle; they insist that the pro-ana websites reinforce rampant cognitive distortions. They call anorexia a biopsychosocial disorder because it has biological, psychological and social dimensions. Are the critics of fasting-by-choice onto something or are they just a bunch of backward and bigoted anaphobes with an undiagnosed cognitive disorder called adipophilia – a strange and creepy affection for body fat?

Join me in a thought experiment. Imagine that the rexies had the benefit of a pro-ana theorist who wrote a faster’s manifesto that re-imagined anorexics as an oppressed minority. Now imagine that some other pro-ana theorists, who were inspired by the first pro-ana theorist, were to script a very detailed media campaign for convincing all of the rest of America that anorexics were not freakishly strange people, but “really” smart, capable and in-control gals with admirable self-discipline who were making an alternative lifestyle choice that was a private matter protected by the United States Constitution.

Next imagine that the anorexics launched an aggressive campaign to disrupt speaking appearances by members of the American Psychiatric Association. Picture the rexies shouting down the psychiatrists and making a shambles of their efforts to build their careers. Suppose that this campaign was so intense that the American Psychiatric Association agreed to closed-door meetings with pro-ana militants that dragged on for a year and that at the end of that year the APA had agreed to allow the rexies to distribute a main-in ballot to every member of the APA asking them if it was time to drop anorexia nervosa from the APA’s manual of disorders, all of it to be carefully worded and funded by the rexies. Suppose that only a statistically worthless 25% of the membership bothered to return their ballots and that the rexies just barely won that meaningless vote and got anorexia scrubbed as a disorder from the APA’s definitive manual of disorders.

And finally imagine that the rexies were lavishly funded by “thinspiration” advocates in the “never-too-thin, never-too-rich” fashion industry and that popular “Slenderella” Hollywood actresses gave moving appeals for pro-ana tolerance and an end to rexie bashing.

If all of this is more than you can imagine, then come to terms with these historical facts: this fanciful arc of an upcoming Rise of the Rexies is exactly the pathway to “gay acceptance” that was paved by homosexual activists. This is the history of the Gay Movement.

A gutless clutch of careerists at the American Psychiatric Association were bullied into dropping homosexuality from the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual; they collapsed under a campaign of harassment and intimidation; removing homosexuality from the APA’s list of disorders was a political act, not a medical assessment.

The media campaign of gay activists is modeled on a battle plan scripted by the queer theorists Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill. This strategic document is appropriately titled “The Overhauling of Straight America.” The single seminal gay theorist who got the gay movement started was a Communist Party loyalist named Harry Hay who sat down at his kitchen table one evening in 1946 and re-imagined homosexuals the way Karl Marx might have imagined them if Karl Marx had been a homosexual: as an oppressed minority.

This gay war plan spells out in graphic detail a thoroughly dishonest smear campaign to malign all critics and to recast gays in the public mind as victims rather than the troublesome deviates of everyday experience. Clueless straight liberals were suckers for the new gay victim pose which cynical gays exploited with appeals for help. Here’s an excerpt from “The Overhauling of Straight America”:

The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal.

That is how Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill began their game plan for lulling normal humans in to accepting the homosexual colonization of mainstream America. They continue:

The way to benumb raw sensitivities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way. Open and frank talk makes the subject seem less furtive, alien, and sinful, more above-board. Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizeable segment accepts or even practices homosexuality. Even rancorous debates between opponents and defenders serve the purpose of desensitization so long as “respectable” gays are front and center to make their own pitch. The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome.

And when we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose in the tent – only later his unsightly derriere!

They are describing a shamelessly cynical campaign to dupe normal Americans into allowing the sly encroachment of an alien and toxic subculture into the American mainstream. Both Kirk and Pill are deeply hostile to traditional Christian perspectives; they exhort gays to spread moral confusion and to weaken America’s moral guardrails; they tell gays to “. . . use talk to muddy the moral waters.” Gays are told to strike the victim pose:

In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our “gay pride” publicly when it conflicts with the Gay Victim image . . .

They are talking about using your own best instincts against your own best interests. Because the average American has never read any gay-radical literature and has no clue that queer theory even exists, much less that there is a campaign afoot to “overhaul” every core institution about which American culture coheres, the average American is a sitting duck for Gay Power propaganda. That propaganda is everywhere. It is in the newspapers; it is in television news and dramas; it is bubbling out of every high school “gay/straight alliance” club; it trips from the lips of every elementary-school teacher mouthing “Heather Has Two Mommies.”

Every gay activist agrees that the rotting underbelly of gay culture must be hidden from normal Americans at all cost; the straights, the idiot “breeders,” must never catch a glimpse of what dwells in the hearts of millions of homosexuals. But don’t trust me; hear it from the lips of the queer theorists who invented the current gay agenda now being endorsed by Barack Hussein Obama.

A media campaign to promote the Gay Victim image should make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream’s sense of threat, which lower its safeguard, and which enhance the plausibility of victimization. In practical terms, this means that jaunty mustachioed musclemen would keep a very low profile in gay commercials and other public presentations, while sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured. (It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA [North American Man-Boy Love Association] must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims.)

Of course not! If the Gay Movement was to get any traction that randy bunch of frolicsome boy rapists who were, until recently, an unquestioned feature of every gay pride parade must be hidden from view! A deviant subculture energized by anal erotism, sado-masochism, fetishism, pederasty and lesbian child predation was making a pitch for mainstream acceptance but without renouncing its deviant essence. The change was purely cosmetic

The queer theorists and their gay and straight acolytes stand condemned by the black-letter text of the Gay Movement’s manifesto which instructs the foot soldiers of Gay Liberation to lie, defame, distort, conceal, vilify, harass and menace – all in the name of “gay rights” and always while striking that phony victim pose. Here’s another dose of twisted gay subterfuge :

Straight viewers must be able to identify with gays as victims. Mr. and Mrs. Public must be given no extra excuses to say, “They are not like us.” To this end, the persons featured in the public campaign should be decent and upright, appealing and admirable by straight standards, completely unexceptional in appearance – in a word, they should be indistinguishable from straights we would like to reach.

These masters of deception are talking about the sanitized homosexuals who pop out of your television during Will & Grace re-runs or Grey’s Anatomy every Thursday evening. How long do you think it will be before there is an episode in which a gay arrives at the Seattle Grace emergency room with a gay-related injury – a bleeding rectum, a lacerated anal sphincter or an impossible-to-remove-without-surgery foreign object lodged in his lower colon? The answer is never! The victim of a gay gang rape? Never! This is what happens in real emergency rooms but never happens on the stage sets of dramas written by homosexuals or their straight enablers. There is a chasm between the reality of what you will discover on the gay-health websites and what you will every see on Grey’s Anatomy. If the writers of Grey’s Anatomy ever showed you the truth they would be shunned; they would be ostracized; they would never work again. Liberal fascism takes no prisoners.

When your sexual encounters are always one genuine sex organ short of a full deck the term “normal sex” is meaningless. With everything even remotely related to human procreation completely off the menu, any weird behavior is possible. But you won’t see any of that weirdness in television dramas because the gay-friendly creators of your TV fare are slavishly following the guidelines scripted for them by Mr. Kirk and Mr. Pill. Liberal “artists” resemble robots; they are programmed to never, ever, color outside the lines.

All of the squeamish straights must be shielded from reality:

A media campaign that casts gays as society’s victims and encourages straights to be their protectors must make it easier for those who respond to assert and explain their new protectiveness. Few straight women, and even fewer straight men, will want to defend homosexuality boldly as such. Most would rather attach their awakened protective impulse to some principle of justice or law, to some general desire for consistent and fair treatment in society. Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme.

Got that? The dimwit straight enablers of a thoroughly cynical and corrupt gay agenda aren’t really helping to facilitate boy rapists and the trashing of marriage as a respectable institution, they are defending “some principle of justice” and a general desire for consistency. Here’s more:

At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights – long after gay ads have become commonplace – it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified . . . We intend to make the anti-gays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types.

The authors of the current gay-friendly media onslaught go on to describe in detail how every opponent of any request for gay accommodation must be vilified, defamed, tarred and feathered, flogged and mischaracterized as a toothless backwater hillbilly with an idiotic crush on Jesus.

Homosexuals see the world through different eyes; every moment of their lives has been experienced through the altered neurology of a male or female homosexual. If nothing else, the gay-advocacy websites have convinced me that homosexuality is anchored in human biology. Gays and lesbians cannot be talked out of their gayness; they are oddball variations of the human species, the consequence of recessive genes or, in the case of lesbians, exposure to way-too-much testosterone during fetal development. If the causes of homosexuality were more than freakishly rare, they would spell the end of humanity. Homosexuality is the consequence of normal development gone astray, of a normal biological process gone haywire; it is not the moral or social equal of heterosexuality; it is not an alternative normal (there is no alternative normal); it serves no social or biological purpose whatsoever. Homosexuals are a residue of heterosexual activity and no amount of homespun theorizing or exertions of imagination can elevate homosexuality to co-equal status with heterosexuality. Homosexuality is inferior because, at best, it is pointless and at its worst it is a menace.

Because homosexuality is the consequence of some vulnerable biological process gone amiss and because every homosexual’s odd proclivities and perspectives puts him (her) at odds with the values and virtues of the 97% of society who are not homosexual, we are left to conclude that homosexuality, like anorexia nervosa, is a biopsychosocial disorder.

If the extreme dieters of Anorexic Nation are not a genuine minority worthy of our appreciation and respect, then neither are the anus pumpers and the butch-bitch dildo jockeys of Queer America whose deviant and dead-end essence is hostile to the long-term social interests of any healthy society.

Gays at their best are odd and edgy and subversive. Their acidic outsider critiques of straight culture are worth a listen. It is, after all, the grindstone that makes the blade sharper. That said, every culture secures its future by maintaining the integrity of those shared values that bind together the people of that culture. Without shared values there is no coherence – everything falls apart. The outsider perspective has its place, but that place is somewhere at the margins.

The argument that gays are a minority “just like” black people is laughable and insulting; the very suggestion is a desperate attempt by homosexuals to attach their bid for middle-class respectability to the cause of black civil rights. Black people are a race; homosexuals are the flawed residual by-products of heterosexual procreation. Every visible characteristic of black people is an organic and life-enhancing adaptation to their environment of origin – equatorial Africa and its fatal sun. Dark skin, nappy hair, large nostrils and localized fat deposits (stored energy) on the buttocks are all adaptations to the fatal sun of Africa. Light-skinned Negro albinos seldom live beyond their thirties. Likewise, the transparent skin, the insulating straight hair, the narrow nostrils and the evenly-distributed layer of heat-retaining fat that characterizes white people are all adaptations to the sun-starved ice-bound lands of the Ice Age north.

Homosexuals, by contrast, are not the result of anything life enhancing; they are an evolutionary dead end. If it were possible to identify a single gene that caused homosexuality it would be appropriately named the Doomsday Gene because any significant increase in its expression would doom our species to extinction.

Homosexuals are the products of chance; they are no more a minority deserving of special rights than are people who were born left-handed, like President Obama. Every life is a roll of the dice; left-handedness imposes difficulties in a world where 90% of the population is right-handed and a homosexual disposition imposes frustrations when 97% of humanity is born heterosexual. That’s life! Get used to it!

The great enterprise of American civilization should not be weakened by demands to re-define its organizing institutions to accommodate freaks with freakish lifestyles and freakish appetites. Candid homosexuals agree with me about this.

No topic has roiled the gays more than gay marriage or, to put it another way, the domestication of the gay soul. The modern Gay Movement with its sophisticated and sanitized media campaign, scrupulously cleansed of transvestites, pederasts and fetishists, is the creature of a rather small clutch of educated upper-middle-class homosexuals who yearn to have their deviant tastes accepted as a new alternative normal. They want to mainstream a constellation of psychological and behavioral peculiarities that are the result of their personal biological development gone astray. Honest queers aren’t buying into the new white-gloved gay etiquette; they aren’t ready to be corralled; they aren’t ready for domestication.

If the ever-so-proper upper-crust gays succeed in creating a popular stereotype of domesticated gayness and if this new-to-history sanitized gayness becomes the bedrock of gay legitimacy, then any gay who strays from the new stereotype will stand doubly condemned as a depraved freak. The downward social pressure from straights and domesticated gays alike on the rogue homosexuals will be immense. Welcome to the New Gay Hell.

The New Gay Hell

Anyone who thinks that the absence of sex differences in same-sex relationships results in greater harmony is sadly mistaken. One study of stable gay relationships, based on over 2,800 interviews of gay men in San Francisco, Los Angles, New York and Chicago was published in the American Journal of Public Health which reported that 34% had endured psychological abuse, 22% had suffered physical abuse, and 5% sexual violence.

In truth, the absence of sex differences may actually increase the rivalry for dominance and control. Same-sex relationships allow unique forms of abuse such as threats to “out” a partner to family, friends or employers or to reveal a partner’s HIV status. There is a conspiracy of silence within the gay community that same-sex domestic violence even exists; the lesbians cling to the fantasy that they are feminist, loving women who don’t do nasty male stuff; the gays keep silent because they don’t want to be seen as pitiful victims. Nothing enhances a gay male’s chances of being abused more than “coming out” as HIV positive. “We often hear horrific and sad stories,” said Jamie Rich, director of the Lesbian and Gay Community Center of Greater Kansas City. Of course, it doesn’t help matters that one in four homosexuals is also an alcoholic.

The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs in its report documenting 3,327 cases of domestic violence between lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender partners concluded that between 25% and 33% of these relationships experienced domestic violence and that same-sex violence was “vastly under-reported.” Many gays will not report domestic abuse because calling a help hotline is tantamount to “coming out.” When gay marriages end in divorce the bitterness can be titanic with divorce lawyers reporting lesbians squabbling over every single dress and designer handbag.

The “gay community” is far from unanimous in its opinion that same-sex marriage is worth pursuing. An Internet search using the search words “gays against gay marriage” instantly brought to light many articulate contrary opinions. Here is a taste from Jonathan Soroff’s brief essay Gays Against Adam and Steve:

“It’s demonstrably not the same thing as a marriage between a man and a woman. It’s two guys or two girls, and no matter how much Mendelssohn and matching white outfits you dress it up in, the religious and social significance of a gay wedding ceremony simply isn’t the same. We’re not going to procreate as a couple (until science catches up), and while the desire to demonstrate commitment might be laudable, the religious traditions that have accommodated same-sex couples have had to do some fairly major contortions to do so . . . So the promise part is nice. Otherwise, ‘gay marriage’ is beside the point. And for precisely that reason, I find it cringe-worthy to watch gay couples aping the rituals of a heterosexual wedding ceremony.”

In her essay Will marriage change gay love? Tracy Clark Flory worries about “the impact on gay relationships” of a “governmentally recognized happily ever after.” With concern she asks, “Will the fairy-tale fantasy take hold in the same way it has for heterosexuals and shape romantic dynamics?” She is dismayed to hear from gays in the know that “that’s already happened.” She bumped into Laurie Essig, a professor of sociology at Middlebury College who told her that “A generation of upper-class white lesbians and gays are already enamored by the idea of marriage.”

So the campaign for same-sex marriage is really a quest for upper-crust respectability. These self-identified “good gays” are seeking to differentiate themselves from those bad gays who have long prided themselves “on the acceptance of more fluid romantic, sexual and familial relationships” as the author puts it. She quotes a 26-year-old gay graduate student at Yale who laments, “Ever since marriage was the gay issue, the diversity of types of gay relationships has narrowed.”

Suddenly gay marriage was a big deal for young gays, but why? Gay observer Kelly McClure had an answer: “We can now legally, and in writing, demand that the person we love never ever leave us. EVER!! Or, you know, until they sign another legal document that says they can.” She makes it sound a little like domesticating wolves. Michael Bronski, who teaches gender studies at Dartmouth College, recalls his gay male students describing how “their parents, their mothers in particular, are really happy that they can get married and they are looking forward to them finding the right guy.” He says the parents are fearful their gay sons will contract AIDS. “For them, marriage is not so much a happy ending as safety – which is a complete fantasy of course. The parents think of same-sex marriage as a prophylactic.”

It seems almost quaint, all these years late, to remember how Oprah Winfry galvanized America with frightening predictions of the coming heterosexual AIDS epidemic, an epidemic that never happened because the straight-folk commitment of biblically-defined monogamous pair bonding stood as a firewall against heterosexual mass extinction.

The New York Legislature’s passage of the Marriage Equality Act prompted renewed discussion among gay activists about the value of pursuing a social convention that so thoroughly enshrines the straight-folk values of fidelity, exclusivity and monogamy. Once the relationships of the “good gays” are legitimized and cosseted in the protective cocoon of marriage, don’t the “bad queers” in their open relationships or their polyamorous relationships or their preference for wordless anonymous sex with strangers, seem even more deserving of disdain and marginalization?

This could be the beginning of the end of the “gay community.” Let’s face it, the unity of the homosexuals has always been a creature of convenience. Would gay males and lesbians spend ten minutes’ time in one another’s company if they did not have a shared political agenda? My home town is renowned for its tolerance of homosexuals but the gay male couples live in the big Colonials on the hill west of Valley Street and the lesbians live on the rise east of Valley Street; gay parties are conspicuous for their lopsided lack of gender balance.

Now that homosexuals have a way to become (sort of) respectable, there will be increased social pressure on them to be respectable.


Based on the evidence, we must conclude that homosexuals are a synthetic minority because their minority status is the consequence of politics well played. There is no biological argument for elevating homosexuality to equality with heterosexuality; homosexuality is an unproductive biological backwater; it is the consequence of normal life-enhancing biological developments gone fatally wrong. The natural world is riddled with such failures. Homosexuals are “natural” in the same sense that two-headed sheep are “natural,” no more significance than that can be given to their appearance in the world. Biological processes are vulnerable to corruption. Humans who are sexually attracted to other humans of their own gender are biological accidents; they are freaks of nature. No human culture that hoped to have a future would allow such a freakishly odd and biologically pointless disposition to share equal status with future-ensuring heterosexuality. Homosexuality is a sterile parody of fertile heterosexuality, just as gay marriage is a mocking parody of true marriage.

Even aging heterosexual couples who are well beyond the age of procreation serve the immensely positive supporting function of role-modeling normal gender pair bonding. Heterosexual grandparents reinforce the role-modeling of their parenting children. Heterosexual grandparents complete the arc of modeling the humanity-preserving behaviors of normal heterosexuality.

The Gay Movement, by contrast, is merely a creature of politics, money, and a shameless willingness to tell normal people outrageous lies. As you have witnessed, the founding documents of the Gay Movement are proof-beyond-doubt that gay activists are shameless liars who are cynically exploiting the most noble inclinations of normal Americans to advance the selfish interests of their tiny and corrosive gay subculture.

Any sensible civilization would resist elevating an oddity that Nature has so thoroughly marginalized. A wise people would leave homosexuality exactly where Mother Nature herself has placed it – resting uselessly at the bottom of Darwin’s dumpster.

Thomas Clough
Copyright 2013
February 9, 2013