On Monday, former Google engineer James Damore filed a class-action lawsuit against his former employer, alleging discrimination against conservatives, white people, and men. Among other claims, Damore and the other complainants revealed that Google fosters a diversity of “lifestyles,” but excludes conservative options.
(Article by Tyler O’Neil republished from PJMedia.com) (Title augmented)
“Google furnishes a large number of internal mailing lists catering to employees with alternative lifestyles, including furries, polygamy, transgenderism, and plurality, for the purpose of discussing sexual topics,” Damore et al. charged in the suit. “The only lifestyle that seems to not be openly discussed on Google’s internal forums is traditional heterosexual monogamy.”
In March of 2017, Google’s human resources (HR) department upbraided an employee for conservative and traditional parenting techniques. The department complained about this post: “If I had a child, I would teach him/her traditional gender roles and patriarchy from a very young age. That’s the hardest thing to fix later, and our degenerate society constantly pushes the wrong message.”
“We did not find that this post, on its face, violated any of Google’s policies, but your choice of words could suggest that you were advocating for a system in which men work outside the home and women do not, or that you were advocating for rigid adherence to gender identity at birth,” Google HR responded. “We trust that neither is what you intended to say.”
The department continued, “We are providing you with this feedback so that you can better understand how some Googlers interpreted your statements, and so that you are better equipped to ensure that Google is a place in which all Googlers are able to reach their full potential.”
“In other words, Google scolded the Google Employee for, among other things, believing that gender identity is set at birth biologically—a position held by the vast majority of the world’s populace that Google professes to serve,” Damore et al. wrote.
An endorsement of gender identity based on biological sex is considered beyond the pale, but according to the suit Google fosters many “alternative lifestyles” beyond transgenderism. “Furries,” for instance, dress up and act like animals. A movement of “human pups” mixes BDSM and gay sex with the “lifestyle” of grown men dressing up and acting like dogs. One of the more straightforward of these “lifestyles” — polygamy — merely involves marrying more than one person, usually men marrying multiple wives.
“Purality” may be the least easy to grasp. Damore et al. explained it in a footnote. “For instance, an employee who sexually identifies as ‘a yellow-scaled wingless dragonkin’ and ‘an expansive ornate building’ presented a talk entitled ‘Living as a Plural Being’ at an internal company event,” the suit read.
In addition to “furries,” some people have adopted an animalistic sexual identity. For instance, at least one transgender man didn’t stop with identifying as a woman. He — or, as he would prefer to be called, “it” — has “become” a dragon lady, and has undergone painful and expensive surgery including tooth removal, horn implants, nose modification, and the creation of a forked tongue. Born “Richard Hernandez,” the 55-year-old ex-human adopted the name “Eva Tiamat Baphomet Medusa.”
In common parlance, this transgender dragon lady would fit into the broader category of “Otherkin” — those who identify as non-human. (No word on how soon they’d clamor for the removal of human rights.) Indeed, one particularly crazed individual had surgery to become an extraterrestrial.
In any case, Damore’s example of “plurality” at Google isn’t just a dragonkin like Eva Tiamat, however. The person (?) also identifies as “an expansive ornate building.” Do these identities alternate? Does the person stand still for long periods of time, doing nothing? Does Google pay for this time spent “identifying” as a building?
“Plural” sexual identity involves just such a combination of more than one sexual identity. This ex-human is not satisfied with identifying as a (sadly, wingless) dragon, he/she/it also has to take on the persona of a building. Still no word on how any of these identities actually correlate with sexual activity or procreation — most likely no one in his or her right mind wants to know.
If this lawsuit is correct — and these are not the most questionable claims in Damore’s legal action — Google is indeed a topsy-turvy world, endorsing what most people would consider a form of insanity while rejecting traditional understandings of gender and sex as beyond the pale.
Damore gained notoriety by releasing a memo criticizing the tech giant’s “ideological echo chamber” and suggesting that the gender gap in STEM fields could trace back to biological differences between men and women. His document was mischaracterized by the media, and ironically inspired Google to double down on ideological conformity and female employees to play hooky the next day.
In other words, Google’s response seemed to prove his point. For its part, the tech company has expressed their willingness to face the lawsuit in court, and their expectation of ultimate victory. Perhaps they should not be so confident…