Following Donald Trump’s anti-DEI-fuelled victory over in America, Facebook’s no longer gender-neutral parent company Meta opportunistically announced some changes to its terms and conditions: no more would it be forbidden to call gay or trans people mentally ill on the company’s various social media platforms, if that’s what you really think about them.

American queer advocacy group GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) denounced Meta’s move as enabling hate, saying it was being made “at the expense of its users and true freedom of expression”, by which they actually meant censorship.

If GLAAD were correct that public media outlets need to be scrubbed clean of any and all references to the idea LGBTQ-ers might be psychologically disturbed, however, they would need to rinse out not only Facebook’s mouth with soapy water, but also that of the normally pink-worshipping BBC. Even back in the rainbow-friendly Biden days of 2021, the Corporation was already reporting that “Lesbian, gay and bisexual people are more than twice as likely as heterosexuals to have a long-term mental health condition”, by a rate of around 16 percent to 6 percent.

Queer in the head

Once upon a time, 100 percent of non-straight folx would have automatically been considered disturbed by definition, with homosexuality officially listed as a mental disorder in the Western world’s standard psychological textbook, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM); not until 1987 was being bent removed from the DSM entirely. Only in 2019, meanwhile, did the World Health Organisation strike being transsexual from its formal list of mental health maladies; the subsequent careers of Rachel Levine and Dylan Mulvaney suggest the WHO may have acted a little too soon.

Over in certain other non-Western cultures, medics still see such tendencies as signs of outright insanity: a 2014 paper in The Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran reported 81 percent of native cross-dressers as suffering one or more forms of underlying mental issue, like schizophrenia, paranoia, or Narcissistic Personality Disorder. As being a male cross-dresser in Iran presumably means donning a full-length burka, one wonders how such patients were even initially identified.

In Iran, therefore, such things tend to be socially discouraged as signs of psychosis. Here in the more delusion-tolerant West, they seem more likely to be formally encouraged: witness the recent case of Ashley Dalton, a queer left-wing UK Labour Party politician of proudly pro-trans leanings who, when asked whether she would accept the word of someone who self-identified as a llama, said such a trans-species individual should be treated with “dignity and respect”. If they really did self-ID as a llama, Ashley shouldn’t expect to receive any reciprocal respect back in return; said individual of the family Camelidae would be more likely to simply spit in her face.

Personally, I do not believe that ordinary, common-or-garden, socially normal gays and lesbians of the genus Homo normiensis are mentally ill at all. Figures like David Starkey, Douglas Murray and Andrew Doyle all seem perfectly sane to me: much more so than Ashley Dalton, in any case. Yet there are other sub-species of gays and transgenderists out there whose own level of mental wellness seems a little more … unbalanced.

Putting the “ego” into “Lego”

I do think the DSM and WHO were correct to remove homosexuality from their official lists of mental disorders. It is just that, as soon as they did so, they should have immediately replaced said fake “mental condition” with a new, far more genuine, one in its place immediately: that not of being gay, but of being queer.

For me, queerness stands as being the pathological form of homosexuality, much as depression stands as the pathological form of grief, or anorexia stands as the pathological from of being on a diet. That 2014 Iranian medical paper linking queer people with conditions like schizophrenia, paranoia, and (most tellingly of all) Narcissistic Personality Disorder, sounds to be right on the rial. Being same-sex-attracted, some more extreme gay ideologues are in a certain sense in love with their own selves, are they not, like Narcissus gazing adoringly into his own face in the shimmering mirror of the water-pond? Everywhere they look, they just see their big gay selves being reflected endlessly back to them. Some more than others, it would seem …

An excellent case in point has just emerged in the UK, where the Science Museum in London has been in receipt of much deserved media mockery after repurposing its halls as part of a new “Seeing Things Queerly” tour, which pointlessly aims to showcase “stories of queer communities, experiences and identities” amongst its exhibits. Unfortunately, however, being a Science Museum, not a Gay Museum, 99.9 percent of its exhibits have nothing to do with sexuality at all, homo or hetero. Therefore, the Museum trustees have had to employ certain apparently mentally ill members of staff to skip around the place staring at random objects and employing their innate powers of Gay-O-Vision™ in order to just arbitrarily assert certain items are gay when they clearly are not (nor are they straight either, by the way – they’re INANIMATE).

In other words, the Science Museum has paid activist curators to roam its building suffering from some kind of incipient gay dementia, before subsequently acting to officially validate their disturbed fantasies in its fawning information-plaques and tourist guide materials. This is how we ended up with the following in-museum description of a display of Lego bricks claiming they were somehow now sinister and oppressive agents of heteronormativity and transphobia:

“Like other connectors and fasteners, Lego bricks are often described in a gendered way. The top of the brick with sticking out pins is male, the bottom of the brick with holes to receive the pins is female, and the process of the two sides being put together is called mating. This is an example of applying heteronormative language to topics unrelated to gender, sex and reproduction. [A bit like how you apply homonormative language to wholly unrelated things like Lego bricks yourself, then?] It illustrates how heteronormativity (the idea that heterosexuality and the male/female gender binary are the norm and everything that falls outside is unusual) shapes the way we speak about science, technology, and the world in general.”

If Lego is really so “transphobic”, though, then how do you explain the lamentable existence of explicitly queertastic Lego sets like the following?

Catalogue of errors

Claiming that Lego bricks have subliminally disguised tiny plastic penises and/or vaginas, and that sticking them together into little walls is a form of “mating” is genuinely demented, and deserved all the wholly justified UK media derision it got. But the Science Museum’s insanity doesn’t end there. Examining its full Seeing Things Queerly catalogue, we find other, equally ridiculous, sexuality-related re-interpretations of previously innocent-looking pre-existing displays like these:

• The World War II fighter plane, the Vickers-Supermarine Spitfire, was apparently now gay because a single one of its pilots was dubiously acclaimed as being “transgender” once the war was over (even though this was untrue, the pilot just had a rare medical condition). Astonishingly, curators failed to further observe that certain models of Spitfire were painted pink so as to blend in with the clouds during dawn and dusk-based lighting conditions as handy aerial camouflage.
• A bottle of violet syrup cough medicine in the Museum’s medical science wing is deemed to be a lesbian due to the fact that the ancient Greek lesbian poet Sappho once wrote some poems about violets. Furthermore, in 1926, an incredibly obscure play, The Captive, was withdrawn from Broadway following uproar over a scene in which a woman sends her lesbian lover a bouquet of violets.
• Also in the medical wing are a pair of stuffed chickens, bred by US geneticist Thomas Hunt Morgan to study the role chromosomes play in heredity. But you know what chromosomes also do? That’s right, they determine sex and gender – or maybe they don’t, if you’re an emotionally disturbed transsexual, possibly they actually do nothing at all, and don’t even exist, they’re all just a homophobic Nazi myth.

Where does this all end? Is a glass prism henceforth to be considered a primitive form of gay conversion device, as it makes rays of light become bent? Are photons non-binary because they possess wave-particle duality? Did Newton’s apple only fall off its branch because it had just died of AIDS?