Disney decides to go for woke

Snow White and the 7 dwarfs? Cis-gendered and racist. Not to mention size-list.

If executives of the Walt Disney Co. are serious about tackling the endemic poison of cisgendered-white-patriarchal ideology in our wicked society, it’s high time they revisited their enormous back-catalogue of works that have promoted this pernicious propaganda for too long.

It is not enough to start making movies that reflect and celebrate our modern sexual mores, as we have learned lately is their intent. They need to make urgent reparations for the pollution they have poured into the impressionable minds of young children over the first disgraceful century of the company’s existence.

I would recommend establishing a large team of young managers, recent graduates in critical gender theory from our most selective universities, all thoroughly trained in enforcement techniques used in corporate diversity, equity and inclusion programs and dedicated to eliminating every noxious hint of gender rigidity from the company’s output.

The work will be arduous because the damage is vast. From “Lady and The Tramp” and “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” to “The Lion King,” the very titles of these repugnant efforts at juvenile indoctrination are throwbacks to an age of prejudice, stereotyping and the study of human biology.

Dumbo would be able to fly higher than the cis-gendered girls.

Perhaps the smart people in the company’s technology department might come up with some kind of digital book-burning exercise to expunge from the national consciousness every last one of those offensively binary “One Hundred and One Dalmatians.”

Only then can they get on to remaking the classics: “Peter Pansexual,” the story of a child who never grew up but still entered into fulfilling open relationships with pirates, fairies and, yes, “lost boys”; “Dumbo, Preferred Pronoun: She,” the inspiring tale of the brave little elephant who, after transitioning, became the most successful circus act of all time, easily surpassing in aerial agility all the cisgendered females.

Before admission to Disney World, every 5-year-old should be required to sit through a day-long induction program on the full rainbow of sexual and gender possibility. Then, duly re-educated and LGBTQIA2s+ accredited, interrogated to protect the public against any lingering vestige of prejudice, and carefully inspected for the removal of offensive items such as “princess” costumes, they will be permitted to proceed through the turnstiles into an ideologically compliant theme park that will really be the Happiest Place on Earth.

It’s easy to mock, but when a company whose products have entertained, enlivened and enriched the lives of billions of children and their parents decides it must take a stand against the Parental Rights in Education Bill, what does it expect? By joining in the campaign to distort the objective of Florida’s new law, defame the people behind it, and deprive parents of the right to determine whether their children as young as 5 should be taught about sexual orientation or gender identity in the classroom, Disney executives invite something much worse than ridicule. They risk placing themselves on the side of a small minority of unrepresentative ideologues who are trying to remake the relationship between children, their parents and their teachers.

Peter Pan could be remade as Peter Pansexual.

The larger problem Disney’s dutiful obeisance to the noisy extremists represents is the way in which those who seek to control our culture are redefining a central element of democratic pluralism — what it means to be an open and tolerant society.

I am sure there is no shortage of bigots in this country and elsewhere with malevolent views about minorities, people who would deny basic human rights to people of a certain sexual orientation or those genuinely ambivalent about their gender identity. But most Americans aren’t like that. They are sympathetic to the particular challenges that these people face and they want them to be respected and loved and given opportunities available to everyone.

That used to be considered, in the normal use of language, tolerant. But the rules have changed. It’s not enough to be tolerant if you’re a citizen or a corporation: you need to be a participant in a campaign to reorient our culture — to expand the horizons of sexual awareness for every 5-year-old in the country and subscribe to the mandatory proposition that there is no such thing as biological sex.

A scene from 101 dalmatians.

It’s the same with race. Even a decade ago we all knew what bigotry looked like. A white supremacist was someone who believed that race was the defining characteristic of humans and the determinant of their ability, and that white people were inherently superior. (I always found it self-refuting that the white people who articulated this view always seemed to be among the lowest forms of intelligent life on the planet.)

But “bigotry” has been redefined. “White supremacy” is imputed to all white people, and only those who own up to it can begin the long journey toward eradicating it. In this now-dominant view, race is now indeed the defining characteristic of humans — the determinant of every individual’s moral condition.

So, instead of striving to be a tolerant society, we are now directed to become the very opposite. This intolerant place — where any risk of genuine intellectual diversity, independent thought or the rights of parents to instruct their children — evidently needs coercive policing by institutions wearing Mickey Mouse ears.

The Wall Street Journal