Writer’s rationale is a license for bigotry

I’m writing a rebuttal to the rant by columnist Walter E. Williams, titled “Liberal Struggle against reality,” which should have been called “A license for bigotry.”

Mr. Williams begins his critique of liberal thinking by making the case that boys and girls are biologically wired, as opposed to being socialized or encouraged to play with trucks versus dolls. His proof includes studies showing that male and female primates have similar toy preferences. Really? But even if toy preferences are biological, why make the point? The only reason I can figure is to shame boys from playing with dolls and girls from playing with trucks. I think this shaming takes place frequently enough without a columnist promulgating it.

Then Mr. Williams asserts that liberals have intimidated toy sellers into getting rid of the labels “toys for boys” and “toys for girls.” Really?

And how does this intimidation take place? I seriously doubt that any parent has ever called Mattel and demanded this type of labeling be removed. Again, let’s assume there is this so-called intimidation. What is the point or purpose of this observation? The only reason I can think of is to denigrate liberals – and thereby to strengthen our national divide.

Next, Mr. Williams segues his thinking to the infamous non-issue bathroom issue made famous by the North Carolina legislature. His purpose was to shame trans individuals. But here he directly attacks liberals by stating, “This chromosomal reality (XX/XY) is seen as limiting, annoying and an artifact of a patriarchal, chauvinistic society. So liberals and progressives want to change it.”

Well, I don’t know anyone who wants to change biology. Again, what is the point except to divide and shame? There is one other reason which I will leave for the end. The so-called bathroom issue is a fabrication. There are no males pretending to be females with the intention of raping women and girls.

Another useless assertion is that inequality among humans is the norm and equality is the exception. He uses unusual examples, including the preponderance of Jewish violinists, the lack of racial diversity at classical concerts, the superiority of African sprinters, and the lack of women in the NFL. Apparently Mr. Williams feels that liberals want non-Jews to strive to be violinists or women to try to enter the NFL, thereby creating equality. Let’s just say this is true of liberals. To me, striving to attain an almost impossible goal is an admirable characteristic.

Again, Mr. Williams, what is your point?

I believe the other reason Mr. Williams makes these strange and contentious assertions is because he is a syndicated columnist. He gets paid for being outrageous and divisive. The more extreme, the more readers (like a car crash). Maybe he is trying to get a gig on Fox News.　

The writer lives in Little River.

This story was originally published January 28, 2017 at 11:00 AM with the headline "Writer’s rationale is a license for bigotry."