“But let it some me up for you again.”
Should read “Let me sum it up for you again.”
Apart from that brief confusion, the article is superb. I particularly liked “Pretending that women and men are the same and driven by the same motives is a now established idiocy in the west, but the concept of trying to change societies to conform to ideological dogma based on loony tune feminist fantasies is, as I said before, a social engineering project that would have given George Orwell nightmares.”
I went to a diversity forum for business leaders a couple of months ago, expecting it to be about avoiding unconscious bias in hiring and promoting women and ethnic minorities, and I’m a big supporter of the concept that racial and gender diversity is healthy for an enterprise. Instead I stumbled into the Orwellian nightmare of which you speak:
What I got was a lecture on the LGBTQIA community and their rights to express their sexuality (or absence of same). I didn’t even know what the last three letters of the acronym stood for, and was baffled by references to the “cis-gendered” until from context I worked out it was a term for those poor people whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth, as if they were some sort of deviation from the norm. I even felt sorry for the cis-gendered until I figured out that I was one, at least in this twisted dialectic such people speak. I will hire anyone who can do the work: I don’t care about their race, religion, gender or sexual preferences, and will judge them as an individual, based on their performance. That includes their ability to get on with other members of the team, including those who don’t share their preferences.
As for “their rights to express their sexuality at work”, I don’t have that right, so I don’t see why they should. If I started hitting on my female co-workers I’d soon be visited by HR and shown the door. Work is a place for friendly tolerant professionalism, not for sexual expression. Or at least it would be, in a sane world.