Home Feminism Modern Idiocy About Sexual Preference

Modern Idiocy About Sexual Preference



We appear to have another phrase that we must not use because it is derogatory, offensive or possibly just something the Woken SS don’t want us to say. Now it’s “sexual preference” which must not be used. For this is to insinuate, perhaps out right shout at people, that sexuality is a choice.

While discussing LGBTQ rights, Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Tuesday used a term that LGBTQ activists have called “offensive,” “outdated,” and a “dog whistle.”

“I have no agenda, and I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference,” Barrett said, when asked about her stance on preserving protections for members of the LGBTQ community.

The term “sexual preference,” however, is an offensive one, which suggests that sexual orientation is a choice, Lambda Legal, a legal advocacy group, explained on Twitter.

This is the point at which we tell these people to bugger off. That buggering off being simply that there’s a limit to the micromanagement of the language that we’re going to put up with so off you go, bye bye.

It gets worse than that though for the actual complaint itself, the insistence if you prefer, makes no sense anyway.

A preference is a preference. Whether that comes from taste, choice, religion, the internalisation of societal oppression, genetics, in vivo hormones, just the way God made his special little snowflake or because Mom was cold hearted and never demonstrated proper cuddly love.

That one has a preference is nothing at all to do with how one gained that preference. Nor does preference insist nor even imply that choice is involved.

It is entirely possible for me to drink sarsparilla flavoured drinks like root beer. I don’t because I hate the stuff. My preference is for fizzy pop flavoured with kola nuts. How I gained this preference matters not – myself I think it comes from not growing up in the US and thus never developing the taste for sarsparilla. It’s not something we get much in Europe where I did grow up.

But my preferring coke to root beer is just that, my preference. Doesn’t matter how I gained it at all.

So it is with who – or what as we can be open about this and include autophiles and every other rich variety of human sexuality along with our plain vanilla het and gay – have preferences about who they have sex with. To say you “prefer” is to say that there’s a form which meets your needs/desires better. It’s not to say anything at all about how those needs/desires came about, whether they’re inherent or not. And even a choice will be influenced by inherent factors anyway.

Methinks Lambda Legal are just trying to find some other thing we can all be berated for. And if this is what LGBT activism is now reduced to then that battle’s been won, hasn’t it?



  1. I also suspect that they’re fighting over a trivial matter (the word “preference”) that’s rooted in a trivial matter – is there any evidence that a meaningful number of people believe that we choose our sexual preferences? So, damn near nobody believes we choose our sexual preference and the word “prefer” doesn’t imply we choose it.

    Yeah, let’s have a row over that.

  2. LGBT may actually, having won the battle and even the war, be about to lose the peace, so ridiculous and annoying are their juvenile attempts to illogically and idiotically give moral weight to perfectly neutral words such as preference. Gay, straight, lesbian or bi, many just want these activists to shut up, for good.

  3. I remember Oor Wullie’s pall – the one that wasn’t Wee Eck or Fat Boab, Soapy Sam? – hang-out of preference was the Sasaparilla bar.

  4. The way that romantic love works is that it doesn’t. It just happens. I can’t choose to fall in love with someone any more than I can choose not to. If my endocrine glands start pumping out endocrines when I see a slender young lady with her facial features arranged in a certain way, choice had nothing to do with it.

    However I can choose not to act on my natural physical impulses. If the slender young lady, for example, is below a certain age or if she exhibits distaste for old goats. But if my body responded equally to slender young ladies and husky young men, while choice definitely comes into play here, I can’t see anything wrong with it. Who I choose to take off my clothes for is an entirely personal matter.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here


in British English
expunct (ɪkˈspʌŋkt)
VERB (transitive)
1. to delete or erase; blot out; obliterate
2. to wipe out or destroy

Support Us

Recent posts

American Hyperconsumerism Is Killing Fewer People!

This report does not say what the Guardian headline writers think it does: Three Americans create enough carbon emissions to kill one person, study finds The...

Contracts Often Lag New Revenue Streams

I've been - vaguely and not with any great interest - anticipating a story like this: Scarlett Johansson sues Walt Disney over Marvel’s Black Widow...

Richard Murphy Rediscovers Monetarism

We have a delightful example of how Richard Murphy simply doesn't understand the basic nuts and bolts of the economics he wants to impose...

Vox Is Missing The Point About Having A Constitution

Not that we should be all that surprised by this from the progressives at Vox. No government- well, no one not controlled by...

So Let’s Have An Elitist Technocracy Instead!

There's been a certain amount - OK, a lot - of squealing in the US about how democracy is the ultimate value and we...

Recent comments