Tag Archives: #Transgender

Posted on by

Hold them accountable! The Loudoun County school officials who covered up a rape all need to go to jail

I had actually ignored this story for awhile, figuring that Robert Stacy McCain would include it in his ‘Violence Against Women’ series, but, alas! he’s been working on other things. From Le*gal In*sur*rec*tion:

“Why Didn’t Anybody Tell Us?”: Angry Loudoun County Students Stage Walk Outs Over Sexual Assaults in Their Schools

Every student that participated in today’s walkouts should take their activism directly to the next school board meeting and demand answers and mass resignations.

Posted by Teri Christoph | Tuesday, October 26, 2021 | 07:00 PM

Students in Loudoun County have had enough. They’ve endured lockdowns, distance learning, all-day masking, and attempts to teach them a radicalized curriculum, all while their county’s partisan and inept school board declared war on their parents and failed to keep schools safe.

What finally moved the students to action, though, was the revelation that one of their own — and possibly two — was sexually assaulted inside a school, the very place kids should feel safe and secure. To make matters worse, the superintendent, Scott Ziegler, failed to inform parents and students that attacks had taken place, thus jeopardizing every student in the county.

Today, hundreds of Loudoun County students walked out of their classrooms, protesting the treatment of the victims, the victims’ families, and the student bodies of every high school, who were kept in the dark about the danger looming in their schools.

There’s more at the original.

Why didn’t the school inform the students what had happened? A couple of reasons spring to mind:

  1. The school administration were afraid that, if the rapes were made known to the students, some students might have administered a ‘hands on’ lesson to the rapist. Even if the administration didn’t reveal the identity of the rapist, once the ‘incidents’ had become known about, there’s no way that the identity of the perpetrator would not have become known.
  2. The rapes were perpetrated by a male student who may have been claiming to be a ‘transgender’ girl.

Heaven forfend, we can’t have the students or the public in general know that a student assigned male at birth but identifying as a girl[1]Regular readers of this site will realize that I formulated that description mockingly. Sex is not ‘assigned’ at birth, but determined at conception, and no amount of drugs, hormones or … Continue reading  committed these crimes. After all, that might lead to discrimination against the ‘transgendered,’ and that would be wrong!

Reports in the credentialed media have played down the transgender angle. In the article noting the rapist’s conviction, all we get is:

`The victim was assaulted in a women’s restroom at Stone Bridge High School by a male allegedly wearing a skirt.

One of the main arguments among conservatives, though not an argument I have chosen to make, is that males claiming to be female are doing so to gain access to female-only public restrooms and locker rooms, for voyeuristic purposes, and possible even for sexual assault. The Loudoun County case reinforces the arguments of conservatives that biological males should not be treated as females for such purposes, and the left cannot have that!

Would other students have beaten the crap out of administered a ‘hands on’ lesson to the perpetrator? Perhaps they would have, but that possibility could easily have been avoided had the school district done the right thing and removed the perpetrator from school entirely. But the school district’s actions, to ‘protect the rights’ of the rapist, and a possibly ‘transgendered’ student, resulted in a second girl getting raped.

The article concluded:

Every student that participated in today’s walkouts should take their activism directly to the next school board meeting and demand answers and mass resignations. This isn’t about petty partisan politics anymore, it’s about safety.

Yes, but that’s not enough. In the Keystone State, former Pennsylvania State University President Graham Spanier, Athletic Director Tim Curley, and Senior Vice President for Finance and Business Gary Schultz, all went to jail — albeit not for long sentences — for child endangerment and other charges in the Jerry Sandusky case, because they failed to call the police to report Mr Sandusky’s rape of a young boy when informed about it.

Loudoun County did worse. Mr Sandusky was, at least, banned from the Penn State athletic facilities, but in Virginia, the school district simply transferred the rapist to another school, where he was free to rape again. I’ll put it bluntly: every member of the school board and administration who was aware of the first rape, and allowed the perpetrator to simply be transferred, needs to be criminally charged and sent to prison! Hold them accountable for their actions!

More, they should all be, individually, sued into penury. Their actions allowed a second girl to be raped! The school board and administration personnel are all adults, and are all responsible for the safety of students. The now-convicted rapist is only 15 years old, so he’ll receive a juvenile sentence. Knowing how northern Virginia has been ruined by the influx of federal government workers, a slap on the wrist would not surprise me.

But at least the adults can be prosecuted as adults, and face adult time in prison. It is only by holding people like them accountable for their actions that we can deter other officials from doing the same things.

References

References
↑1 Regular readers of this site will realize that I formulated that description mockingly. Sex is not ‘assigned’ at birth, but determined at conception, and no amount of drugs, hormones or surgical interventions can change a person’s sex.
Posted on by

The cannibalism of the left They are eating their own!

I am not normally a fan of Andrew Sullivan, but he’s definitely got one thing going for him: he is a strong defender of freedom of speech and of the press, and he is willing to say what he thinks regardless of potentially being ‘cancelled’ by the left.

The Betrayal Of Our Gay Inheritance

How has the new trans left come to resemble the old religious right?

Activists hold banners and placards as thousands attend the Reclaim Pride march in London on July 24, 2021. (Guy Smallman/Getty images) Click to enlarge.

by Andrew Sullivan | Friday, October 22, 2021It was, as it turned out, a bit of a non-event. The walkout by transgender Netflix employees and their supporters to demand that the company take down and apologize for the latest Chappelle special attracted “dozens,” despite media hype.

But the scenes were nonetheless revealing. A self-promoting jokester showed up with a placard with the words “We Like Jokes” and “We Like Dave” to represent an opposing view. He was swiftly accosted by a man who ripped the poster apart, leaving the dude with just a stick, prompting the assailant to shout “He’s got a weapon!” Pushed back by other protestors, he was then confronted by a woman right in front of him — shaking a tambourine — and yelling repeatedly into his face: “Repent, motherfucker! Repent! Repent!”

“The scenes”, huh? While the image at the right was not taken at the “bit of a non-event” Mr Sullivan describes, it is the image that he chose to illustrate his article. While I do not normally use images from articles like that, in this case it falls under Fair Use guidelines, because it illustrates my point: Mr Sullivan is, himself, pointing to an image which is not going to gather a lot of support for the homosexual or transgender rights he supports, not among people who don’t already support such. While London can be a city of clowns when it comes to the anti-establishment population, the image Mr Sullivan chose is not one which is going to persuade a lot of normal people that homosexuals and transgenders are, themselves, normal, but which will leave people thinking that they are a bunch of clowns.

Remember, Mr Sullivan’s column is published on Substack, which means that he chose the image, not Substack editors.

Of course, if there are Substack editors, and they chose the photo to illustrate the article, then Mr Sullivan just might blow his top, because it wholly undercuts his positions.

This is the state of what’s left of the gay[1]As noted in The First Street Journal’s Stylebook, we do not use the word “gay” to refer to homosexuals or homosexuality, but we also do not alter quotations from other people when … Continue reading rights movement in America. Judgmental, absolutist, intolerant, and hysterical, it looks to shut down speech it dislikes, drive its foes out of the public square, compile enemies’ lists of dangerous writers, artists, and politicians, and cancel and protest anything that does not comport with every tiny aspect of their increasingly deranged ideology.

The generation that now leads the movement does not seem to know the actual history of the gay rights movement, or the centrality of free expression to gay identity. They also seem to have no idea of the history of the movement against gay rights. Because if they did, they might be shocked at the ironies involved.

Anti-gay forces, hegemonic for centuries, were just like these trans activists. They were just as intent on suppressing and stigmatizing magazines, shows, and movies they believed were harmful. They too targeted individual artists and writers for personal destruction. They too believed that movies and comedy needed to be reined in order to prevent social harm. They protested in front of movie theaters. They tried to get shows canceled. And if you’d marched in any gay demo or Pride in the 1990s, you’d always be prepared to confront a grimacing Christianist yelling “Repent! Repent!” in your face.

In the 1990s, living in the relatively, though not thoroughly, conservative Hampton Roads region of Virginia, I never witnessed a homosexual rights march, so I certainly never saw what Mr Sullivan was claiming happened happen. But even if it did, it would not have been the marchers’ supposed-to-be allies who were doing so.

This was never, ever the spirit of the gay rights movement in the past. In fact, it was America’s guarantee of free expression and free association that made the gay rights movement possible. It was the First Amendment, and the spirit of the First Amendment, that was easily the most important right for gays for decades.

It’s also what allows the ‘transgender’ rights movement possible, but the ‘transgendered’, like much of the rest of the left, don’t like it when people exercise their freedom of speech to challenge their movements. We have already noted that Twitter, and the left in general, do not like Freedom of Speech. When it comes to the subject of ‘transgenderism,’ Twitter has already banned ‘deadnaming’ and ‘misgendering.’[2]‘Deadnaming’ means referring to a ‘transgender’ person by his given name at birth, rather than the name he has taken to match the sex he claims to be; … Continue reading The New York Times, which so strongly defended its right to Freedom of Speech and of the Press in New York Times Co v United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), gave space in the OpEd section to Andrew Marantz to write “Free Speech is killing us. Noxious language online is causing real-world violence.” Mr Marantz, while exercising his First Amendment rights, clearly does not like the unregulated speech of others. The Times had earlier given OpEd page space to ‘transgender’ activist Chad Malloy to claim that Twitter’s ban on ‘deadnamimg’ and ‘misgendering’ actually promotes the Freedom of Speech.[3]Chad Malloy is a male who claims to be female, using the name Parker Marie Malloy. The First Street Journal’s Stylebook notes that we always refer to the ‘transgendered’ by their … Continue reading

And now? Twitter, Facebook and other social media are censoring or altering posts which question COVID-19 vaccinations and vaccine mandates, and sometimes suspending if not wholly banning people from their sites for pushing such views. The freedom of speech and of the press are under attack from the left, the people who used to be its most strident defenders.

As I noted in the beginning, I am hardly a fan of Mr Sullivan, or the homosexual and ‘transgender’ rights movements, but in this case, he is right: freedom of speech is too precious a thing to lose, and too necessary a right for all of our freedoms, and our individual liberty in general. It is a far less dangerous thing to allow those with whom we disagree to have their say than it is to allow the suppression of speech and ideas; to allow that is to allow other people, if they gain power, to suppress our own speech and ideas.

References

References
↑1 As noted in The First Street Journal’s Stylebook, we do not use the word “gay” to refer to homosexuals or homosexuality, but we also do not alter quotations from other people when they use it.
↑2 ‘Deadnaming’ means referring to a ‘transgender’ person by his given name at birth, rather than the name he has taken to match the sex he claims to be; ‘misgendering’ means referring to a ‘transgender’ person by sex-specific terms referring to his biological sex rather than the sex he claims to be.
↑3 Chad Malloy is a male who claims to be female, using the name Parker Marie Malloy. The First Street Journal’s Stylebook notes that we always refer to the ‘transgendered’ by their birth names and biological sex.
Posted on by

#Transgender activism and #FreedomOfSpeech

I start to worry when I agree with both Bari Weiss and Andrew Sullivan, both in the same week! Heck, I’ve even been listening to Glenn Greenwald.

Dave Chappelle Is Right, Isn’t He?

The comedian defends reality. Which is currently under siege.

by Andrew Sullivan | 2:21 PM EDT

There’s an understandable tendency to view the debate about transgender ideology today as a marginal issue, affecting a minuscule number of people, and at most, a trivial matter in the larger culture wars. And I can see why. It does seem on the surface to be about maybe 0.2 percent of humanity. And if you venture an opinion on it, the consequences are intense — so why bother?

And, overwhelmingly, the elite media in the United States prevents readers from knowing that a debate is even happening, let alone what it is really about. If the argument about gender theory is mentioned at all, it is dismissed as a bunch of “anti-trans” bigots — aka “TERFs” — hurting a beleaguered and tiny minority, for some inconceivable, but surely awful, reason.

And so when the greatest living comedian, Dave Chappelle, bases almost an entire Netflix special on the subject — alternately hilarious and humane, brutal and true — and wades into the debate with wellies on, the exact same piece about the special will be written in much of elite media.

You could write it yourself, couldn’t you? 1. He’s a bigot. “The phobic jokes keep coming — and Chappelle’s efforts to ironise them, to dance around rather than wallow in the boorishness, are derisory,” says the Guardian review. 2. He’s out of date: “All that’s left is the same tired observations delivered behind a bizarre form of commiseration, this time with an added dash of JK Rowling solidarity and using someone else’s death to validate his half-decade of public stubbornness,” according to IndieWire. NPR adds a “multi-racial whiteness” edge: “Too often in The Closer, it just sounds like Chappelle is using white privilege to excuse his own homophobia and transphobia.”

Both the “stubbornness” and the “bigot” theme are reiterated in Vulture: Chappelle is full of “outdated excuses masking a refusal to update a worldview … his head is up his ass. He needs new ideas.” And, with respect to the marginalized: “He’s just asking for you to take up less space, to usher in progress by giving other people time to come around to you.”

There’s much more at the original, but it has to be asked: why would a conservative Catholic like me be agreeing with three famously liberal homosexuals?[1]Miss Weiss is actually bisexual, though she eschews that label. Shockingly enough, all three of these famous commentators believe in some very, very radical things like freedom of speech and individual liberty.

In his recent column on substack, Mr Sullivan notes the rather objective truth: despite what today’s left and the ‘transgender’ activists want you to believe, only females can carry a child through gestation and give birth. We noted, last Monday, The Washington Post’s stylebook change to reference “pregnant individuals” rather than “pregnant women”, due to the left’s cockamamie notion that men can be pregnant.

A transwoman cannot give birth as a woman gives birth. She does not ovulate. Her vagina, if it exists, is a simulacrum of one, created by a multiple array of surgeries. Sex in humans is binary, with those few exceptions at the margins — mixtures of the two — proving rather than disproving the rule. Until five minutes ago, this was too obvious to be stated. Now, this objective fact is actually deemed a form of “hate.” Hate.

This means that the debate is no longer about 0.2 percent of humanity. It’s about imposing an anti-scientific falsehood on 99.8 percent of humanity. It means that we have to strip all women of their unique biological experience, to deny any physical differences between men and women in sports, to tell all boys and girls that they can choose their sex, to erase any places reserved exclusively for biological women, like shelters for those who have been abused by men, and to come up with terms like “pregnant people” to describe mothers. Yes — mothers. The misogyny buried in this is gob-smacking. Is Mothers’ Day next for the trans chopping block?

The struggle is one of language, because language is the formative basis for thought. If the term “woman” can encompass both females and biological males who claim to be female, it has become meaningless. That the terms “cisgender” and “sex assigned at birth“[2]Wikipedia defines “sex assigned at birth” as: Sex assignment (sometimes known as gender assignment) is the discernment of an infant’s sex at birth. Assignment may be done prior to … Continue reading ever came into existence demonstrates the idiocy of modern life.

Mr Sullivan has no problems with homosexual or transgendered persons, but he is mocking the idea that current political correctness requires not only acceptance of transgenderism as something real and normal, rather than a mental illness, but that everyone must publicly conform to the demands of the transgendered for recognition of their claims.

Chappelle’s final Netflix special, “The Closer,” is a classic. Far from being outdated, it’s slightly ahead of its time, as the pushback against wokeness gains traction. It is extremely funny, a bit meta, monumentally mischievous, and I sat with another homo through the whole thing, stoned, laughing our asses off — especially when he made fun of us. The way the elite media portrays us, you’d think every member of the BLT community is so fragile we cannot laugh at ourselves. It doesn’t occur to them that, for many of us, Chappelle is a breath of honest air, doing what every comic should do: take aim at every suffocating piety of the powers that be — including the increasingly weird 2SLGBTQQIA+ mafia — and detonating them all.

I will admit it: I had to follow the link in the New York Post’s mocking article about Justin Trudeau to find out that 2SLGBTQQIA+ stands for “Two Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex and asexual”. As people keep adding letters to “LGBT” it kept getting sillier and sillier, to the point at which mockery is the natural response.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is being mocked on social media after he published two posts that mention the latest woke iteration of an acronym for people with different sexual identities — 2SLGBTQQIA+ — which some likened to an encrypted password or “headbutting the keyboard.”

“People across the country are lighting candles to honour Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people who are missing or have been murdered. We must continue to work together, raise awareness, and advocate to end this ongoing national tragedy. #SistersinSpirit,” the prime minister posted to Facebook and Twitter on Monday, referencing the Sisters in Spirit vigil, which honors women of specific racial or sexual identities who are missing or have been murdered.

The number and letter ‘2S’ in 2SLGBTQQIA+ includes people who identify as “Two-spirit,” ​referring to someone who identifies as having both a masculine and a feminine spirit. It is used by some Indigenous North Americans to describe their sexual identity.

The acronym, which used to be most commonly known as “LGBTQ,” sparked confusion among social media users.

I guess that some people just aren’t #woke[3]From Wikipedia: Woke (/ˈwoʊk/) as a political term of African-American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from … Continue reading enough to keep up with the silly acronyms.

I suspect that Messrs Greenwald and Sullivan, and Miss Weiss, despite the fact that they would not approve of my stance on transgenderism and homosexuality, would very strongly support my right to say and publish my beliefs. Fortunately, I’m retired, so I can’t be ‘cancelled’ from my job, but it’s pretty sad that I have to depend upon that protection.

Mr Sullivan’s subtitle claims that reality “is currently under siege,” which is certainly true, because reality and transgenderism are diametrically opposed. No one really thinks that Bruce Jenner[4]Mr Jenner has legally changed his name to “Caitlyn”, and I suppose that is what has to be used on legal documents now, but my website is not a legal document, and it is The First Street … Continue reading is actually a woman, but political correctness and the #woke left and the credentialed media all pretend that he is, because it’s practically required now.

At some point, the left, who were the champions of unrestricted freedom of speech not all that long ago, will have to recognize people’s freedom of speech. Miss Weiss and Messrs Sullivan and Greenwald have done so, but they are too far and in between these days.

References

References
↑1 Miss Weiss is actually bisexual, though she eschews that label.
↑2 Wikipedia defines “sex assigned at birth” as:

Sex assignment (sometimes known as gender assignment) is the discernment of an infant’s sex at birth. Assignment may be done prior to birth through prenatal sex discernment. In the majority of births, a relative, midwife, nurse or physician inspects the genitalia when the baby is delivered and sex is assigned without ambiguity.

But look at the interchanged terms: discernment is defined as assignment, but assign means, among other things, “to appoint to a post, duty or task,” something which is designated by the authority in question, as though it is that authority’s decision.

↑3 From Wikipedia:

Woke (/ˈwoʊk/) as a political term of African-American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from the African-American Vernacular English expression “stay woke“, whose grammatical aspect refers to a continuing awareness of these issues.
By the late 2010s, woke had been adopted as a more generic slang term broadly associated with left-wing politics and cultural issues (with the terms woke culture and woke politics also being used). It has been the subject of memes and ironic usage. Its widespread use since 2014 is a result of the Black Lives Matter movement.

I shall confess to sometimes “ironic usage” of the term. To put it bluntly, I think that the ‘woke’ are just boneheadedly stupid.

↑4 Mr Jenner has legally changed his name to “Caitlyn”, and I suppose that is what has to be used on legal documents now, but my website is not a legal document, and it is The First Street Journal’s editorial policy to refer to the ‘transgendered’ by their given names and biological sex.
Posted on by

The internet is forever . . . and so is stupidity. Journolists attempt to control the language to influence people's thinking

As regular readers — both of them — of The First Street Journal know, I have a tendency to do screen captures of things I suspect might be deleted. As Travis Lyles, “the first official Instagram Editor at The Washington Post,” now knows, the internet is forever.

    Washington Post adds ‘pregnant individuals’ to style guide

    by Luke Gentile, Social Media Producer | October 1, 2021 | 4:51 PM

    When referring to pregnancy, the Washington Post will strive to be more inclusive and use the term “pregnant individuals,” according to a Twitter post that has since been made private by the publication’s Instagram editor.

    “While biology dictates who can become pregnant, it does not always reflect gender identity,” the style manual reads. “If we say pregnant women, we exclude those who are transgender and nonbinary.”

    However, writers can’t use “pregnant individual” as a blanket term, as that would be at the expense of women who are already a marginalized group, according to the style guide.

    “If you are dealing with a situation in which you know the people identify as women , then you can appropriately use the phrase pregnant woman or pregnant women,” the directive stated. “In other situations, to be more inclusive, use pregnant women and other pregnant individuals.”

The Washington Examiner then included the screenshot of Mr Lyles Instagram post:

Washington Examiner screen capture of Travis Lyles’ Instagram post. Click to enlarge.

There’s more at the original.

So, what is the Washington Examiner? Originally a tabloid-sized daily in the nation’s capital, now a weekly publication and conservative website, it has been around for sixteen years now. Like The Washington Times, it originally hoped to supplant the post, but never did. Wikipedia has questioned its journalism, but at least here, Luke Gentile, the site’s social media producer, had the documentation.

Also see: Abigail Shrier, via Bari Weiss: Top Trans Doctors Blow the Whistle on ‘Sloppy’ Care

Conservatives routinely mock what journolists[1]The spelling ‘journolist’ or ‘journolism’ comes from JournoList, an email list of 400 influential and politically liberal journalists, the exposure of which called into question their … Continue reading have been using as politically correct terminology, but it’s more than just political correctness at work here. It is a leftist attempt to normalize transgenderism, to normalize the cockamamie notion that, in the words of the Kinks, girls can be boys and boys can be girls.

We have previously noted how the left have been trying this, even altering a quote from liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and the ACLU having to apologize for such obvious stupidity.

Even Mr Lyles recognized the biology, saying, “While biology dictates who can become pregnant, it does not always reflect gender identity,” a statement which attempts to decouple the as-long-as-we-have-had-language associations between man and male, woman and female. The control of language is the control of ideas, something the left well know, and something we must resist to preserve the common sense of millennia of known human language and history. The left are attempting to prey on conservatives’ sense of courtesy against us, to get conservatives, and everyone else, used to the idea of transgenderism as somehow being normal and acceptable, as a way to undermine our thinking and our ideology.

It’s simple: it is better to be discourteous than suborned.

References

References
↑1 The spelling ‘journolist’ or ‘journolism’ comes from JournoList, an email list of 400 influential and politically liberal journalists, the exposure of which called into question their objectivity. I use the term ‘journolism’ frequently when writing about media bias.
Posted on by

Biology is politically incorrect The control of language is the control of thought

Click to enlarge.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) used to be an organization which actually had some real intellectual heft to it, but not anymore.

The ACLU sent out a ridiculous tweet, changing the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s statement to make it more 21st century politically correct. A screen capture of the tweet is to the right, just in case the ACLU decide to send it down the rabbit hole, but you can view the original at the previous link.

Well, now the ACLU has apologized for being so stupid, but The New York Times subheading said that yes, it was a mistake, “albeit a well-intentioned one.” Is there such a thing as a well-intentioned mistake?

    A.C.L.U. Apologizes for Tweet That Altered Quote by Justice Ginsburg

    The organization acknowledged that changing references from women to people was a mistake — albeit a well-intentioned one.

    by Michael Powell | Monday, September 27, 2021

    Anthony Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said Monday that he regretted that a tweet sent out recently by his organization altered the words of a well-known quote by the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    The A.C.L.U. tweet, which was sent out Sept. 18, changed Justice Ginsburg’s words, replacing each of her references to women with “person,” “people” or a plural pronoun in brackets. Justice Ginsburg, who died last year, is a revered figure in liberal and feminist circles and directed the A.C.L.U.’s Women’s Rights Project from its founding in 1972 until she became a federal judge in 1980.

    The tweet by the A.C.L.U. occasioned mockery and some anger on social media from feminists and others.

    “We won’t be altering people’s quotes,” Mr. Romero said in an interview on Monday evening. “It was a mistake among the digital team. Changing quotes is not something we ever did.”

    Mr. Romero first noted his regrets in an interview with Michelle Goldberg, The New York Times columnist, who wrote a column that spoke to the danger of trying to “change the nature of reality through language alone.”

There’s more at the original, but it all stems from the cockamamie notion that ‘transgender men’ are actually men, something that both the ACLU and the Times have swallowed whole.

    The A.C.L.U., he said, could have touched on this emerging reality, one that involves identity, gender and language, without tampering with Justice Ginsburg’s quote. “In today’s America,” he said, “language sometimes needs to be rethought.”

Does it? Mr Romero has just said, apparently with a completely straight face, that men can be pregnant. This divorces the word “man” from the biological description “male”, because reproductive biology is such that the male impregnates the female, and females are the ones who become pregnant. Biology is just so politically incorrect!

Of course, Mr Romero said the quiet part out loud. “In today’s America, language sometimes needs to be rethought” means what I have always said, that the control of language is the control of thought. The ‘party of science’ is actually the party of silliness.

In the year 2525, if man is still alive, some anthropologist might excavate the remains of Bradley Manning, the former soldier who now calls himself Chelsea. With so many records destroyed in the third World War, the anthropologist will be trying to figure out what went on in the 21st century. With the soft tissues gone, the anthropologist will examine the skeletal structure of the subject, and record in his notes, “The subject was male.” Then, finding a little bit of DNA has survived, he will classify it, and again write, “The subject was male.” Why? Because he will be using objective, scientific criteria, based on the slightly different skeletal structures of males and females — children have to be able to pass through a woman’s pelvis — and DNA, which differentiates males, with XY chromosomes, and females, who have XX chromosomes. Mr Manning’s subsequent claim to be a woman is not objective, but subjective.

Michelle Goldberg wrote, also in the Times:

    What’s more difficult to discuss is how making Ginsburg’s words gender-neutral alters their meaning. That requires coming to terms with a contentious shift in how progressives think and talk about sex and reproduction. Changing Ginsburg’s words treats what was once a core feminist insight — that women are oppressed on the basis of their reproductive capacity — as an embarrassing anachronism. The question then becomes: Is it?

    The case for making the language of reproduction gender-neutral is fairly straightforward. Beatie may have been the first pregnant man that the public was aware of, but he was obviously not the last. If access to birth control, abortion and obstetric care are fraught for women, they can be even more fraught for trans men and nonbinary people, who must contend with discrimination and challenges to their gender identity.

    Plenty of activists, especially young ones, find gender-neutral language for reproduction, and the conceptual revolution it represents, liberating. The utopian goal of many feminists, after all, is a society that’s not built around the gender binary, a type of society that, as far as I know, exists nowhere on earth (though many cultures make room for a small number of people who exist outside the male/female dichotomy).

    A gender-inclusive understanding of reproduction is in keeping with the goal of a society free of sex hierarchies. It is one thing to insist that women shouldn’t be relegated to second-class status because they can bear children. It’s perhaps more radical to define sex and gender so that childbearing is no longer women’s exclusive domain.

Actually, it’s perhaps more stupid to define sex and gender so that childbearing is no longer women’s exclusive domain.

Liberal thought and ideas of sexual equality have devolved to the point at which it must be denied that the two sexes exist and are different from each other. There is no society and no language on earth in which the words for “men” and “women” are decoupled from the words for “male” and “female”, but that is what the left are trying to accomplish these days, as though changes of language can make changes in reality.

Jared Jennings, a boy who claims to be a girl, calling himself “Jazz,” was the star of a television show documenting his family’s and his struggle to be seen as a girl. In a strange article in Teen Vogue, reality intrudes in a subtle way:

    Among other things, she talks about what it’s like to date as a transgender teen, and proves that though strides have been made, there’s still more work to do in building understanding (and tolerance) for the LGBTQ community.

    “For the most part boys aren’t really accepting of me because I am transgender and therefore not many guys have crushes on me at my school,” she tells Oprah. “They think if they like me they will be called gay by their friends because they like another ‘boy.'”

Or, perhaps, just perhaps, it is because the boys in his school didn’t see him as the girl he claimed to be, but saw him as another boy, one who just happens to be messed up in the head. At the time of the article, published on February 2, 2016, he still had a penis and testicles, though puberty blockers had kept them at pre-adolescent development. Let’s be brutally honest here: what heterosexual boy would want to ‘date’ someone who has a penis and testicles?

    There are many, many layers here to dissect, but let’s just keep it simple: there’s obviously still a big misunderstanding of what makes someone a boy or a girl, and to be honest, at that age we often only know what we’re taught. Jazz is a girl, and that her classmates are trying to keep her boxed into her life before her transition is cruel and underscores the need for more education about sex, gender, and sexuality. At the same time, it’s equally unsettling is that Jazz’s classmates still fear being called gay. It’s not an insult!

Brianna Wiest, the article author, took two assumptions in that paragraph:

  1. That Jared Jennings is a girl, which is objectively untrue, and which his classmates did not see as being true; and
  2. That it isn’t an insult to be called homosexual, which many people do see as such.

This is a real problem for the left: they make these declarative statements, assume them to be completely true, and further assume that that is the end of the discussion. Yet reality, which Mr Jennings’ classmates saw all too clearly, intrudes, as only reality can.

But it is a real problem for conservatives as well, because the more we accept, without objection, the changes in language that the left are trying to emplace and enforce, the more the left are allowed to order our thoughts, and thus control our thoughts. This is why The First Street Journal’s Stylebook is so adamant on not referring to homosexuals and homosexuality as “gay,” and on referring to the ‘transgendered’ by their birth names, if known, and actual sex; I will not consent to the use of incorrect terms.

It could be argued that I am being an [insert slang term for the rectum here] by refusing to refer to Jared Jennings, Bradley Manning and Bruce Jenner by the names and gendered pronouns they prefer; it certainly isn’t polite. But reality isn’t polite, and the truth isn’t polite; reality and truth simply are, and I would rather be seen as impolite than as a liar.

Posted on by

The solution to transgender bathroom issues from an unusual place Who'd have ever guessed that it would come from the Vatican?

In late June of 2016, the Pico family toured the Vatican. Lots of history, tradition and great art, about which thousands and thousands of people have previously written; it’s a subject on which I have little more to contribute.

But there is one very unexpected quirk I saw, just before we left, that addresses a problem for today. Near a public cafeteria were the public restrooms. Entering the men’s room, I noticed the typical urinals along one wall, some in use, and a middle-aged female janitor cleaning, while the restroom was in use. Well, that’s pretty European, I thought.

Then I got to the stalls. Unlike what we see in the United States, the stalls in that men’s room had walls and doors which were essentially floor-to-ceiling, providing complete privacy. And that’s the solution to the stupidity we are seeing in the United States these days. Continue reading →

Posted on by

What could possibly go wrong?

As we have previously noted, while we might forgive His Majesty King Henry VIII for believing that Catherine of Aragon or Anne Boleyn were somehow responsible for his first two children being daughters, the role of the X and Y chromosomes in determining the sex of mammals, including humans, has been known for over a century. Sex is not somehow “assigned” at birth; sex is determined at conception, depending upon whether the sperm which fertilized the egg carries the X or Y chromosome. We recognize the sex of a newborn child by visual examination of the child, but the characteristics which indicate sex developed long before birth, during gestation, as programmed in by the developing child’s DNA.

When you read or hear someone talking about sex being assigned at birth, you know automatically the pure bovine feces is about to follow. From The Philadelphia Inquirer:

Continue reading →

Posted on by

And people wonder why conservatives don’t trust the left Liberals, some of whom claim to be Christians, sure hate them some freedom of religion!

One would have thought that the Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) would have chastened liberals that people’s religious freedom is, and ought to be protected, but, Alas!, it appears to have emboldened the left even more.

The Court decided, 7-2, with liberal Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joining the majority, that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission acted with hostility to the religious beliefs of Jack Phillips, who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ‘marriage’ ceremony.[1]Yes, you may infer from my placing the word ‘marriage’ in single quotation marks that I do not believe that, though legal, a homosexual ‘marriage’ constitutes a real marriage. Mr Phillips does not believe that homosexual ‘marriages are legitimate, and that baking a wedding cake for such would violate his religious freedom rights.

What the Court failed to do is to rule, explicitly, that Mr Phillips’ actions were protected by the First Amendment, and to some on the left, that provided an opening. From The Victory Girls:

Court Rules Masterpiece Must Bake The Cake

by Nina Bookout | Thursday, June 17, 2021

Bake the cake! That’s the ruling from a Denver judge yesterday regarding Masterpiece Cakeshop and owner Jack Phillips.

According to Denver District Court Judge A. Bruce Jones, Jack Phillips can be compelled by law to go against his conscience and beliefs to bake the cake the customer demands. 

In Tuesday’s ruling, Denver District Judge A. Bruce Jones said Autumn Scardina was denied a cake that was blue on the outside and pink on the inside to celebrate her gender transition on her birthday because of her transgender status in violation of the law. While Jack Phillips said he could not make the cake because of its message, Jones said the case was about a refusal to sell a product, not compelled speech.

He pointed out that Phillips testified during a trial in March that he did not think someone could change their gender and he would not celebrate “somebody who thinks that they can.”

“The anti-discrimination laws are intended to ensure that members of our society who have historically been treated unfairly, who have been deprived of even the every-day right to access businesses to buy products, are no longer treated as ‘others,‘” Jones wrote.

There is OH SO MUCH WRONG with this judge’s ruling!

First of all, Autumn Scardina deliberately sought Jack Phillips out. It is no coincidence that Scardina went to Jack Phillips business the very afternoon after the United States Supreme Court announced it would hear Phillips’ appeal.

Scardina wanted, no demanded, that Jack Phillips make a specific gender transition cake. He refused to do so and, as he’s done before, offered an alternative. Scardina refused. But THEN called back and demanded he bake the cake that shows Satan smoking a joint. Phillips again refused to do so. Scardina complained to the state civil rights commission.

Here’s what Judge Jones refused to consider, IMO, regarding this case. Scardina’s deliberate targeting of Jack Phillips.

It’s not clear exactly why Ms. Scardina wanted a cake featuring Satan, apart from provoking him. When asked why she ordered the Satan cake, she said she wanted to believe Mr. Phillips was a “good person” and hoped to persuade him to see the “errors of his thinking.” That’s some deal for someone you say is a “good person”: Change your thinking or I will try to ruin you.

But according to Jones, Scardina’s request/demand of Jack Phillips was not a set up.

And that, my friends, is a boatload of horseshit.

First of all, Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission got smacked down hard by SCOTUS on the case. Secondly, even though Jack Phillips was handed a victory, the lawsuit by Scardina was allowed to proceed. Which, as is publicly known, Scardina did deliberately target Jack Phillips, and an activist judge bought into it.

It’s simple: Charlie Scardina[2]In accordance with The First Street Journal’s Stylebook, we always refer to those who claim to be ‘transgender’ by their birth name and with the pronouns appropriate to their … Continue reading is attempting to use ‘lawfare‘ to either force Mr Phillips to knuckle under and go along with the cockamamie notion that girls can be boys and boys can be girls, or to drive him broke and out of business. Beliefs in opposition to what the left say they must be cannot be tolerated.

Live and let live? Not something with which the left agree!

Justices Ruth Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented in the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, but Mrs Ginsburg has now gone to her eternal reward, and been replaced by Amy Coney Barrett, a strong supporter of religious freedom.

Now the Court has struck another blow for the free exercise of religion:

U.S. Supreme Court denounces Philly for dropping religious foster agency over same-sex marriage stance

The ruling described the city’s 2018 move to end its relationship with Catholic Social Services as unconstitutional.

by Jeremy Roebuck and Julia Terruso | June 17, 2021 | 10:38 AM EDT

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday condemned Philadelphia’s decision to end a long-standing contract with a Catholic social services agency due to its refusal to consider same-sex married couples as potential foster parents.

In a unanimous decision, the justices described the city’s 2018 move to end its relationship with Catholic Social Services, which had cited its religious beliefs about marriage in refusing to work with LGBTQ couples, as unconstitutional.

The ruling is the latest in a series of decisions favoring religious rights since the emergence of a more conservative high court during the administration of former President Donald Trump. But the court’s more liberal justices also signed on to the decision.

It’s likely to reverberate nationwide, with implications for anti-discrimination clauses in government contracts, particularly in the social services sector, where religious providers are common. . . . .

The agency argued that it views the certification of couples as good candidates for fostering children as an “endorsement of the relationship,” and therefore its religious beliefs prevent it from certifying LGBTQ partnerships. Catholic Social Services also noted that it doesn’t work with unmarried couples, either.

There’s more at the original. I anticipate an editorial in The Philadelphia Inquirer denouncing this decision.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion of the Court, and, citing Masterpiece Cakeshop, said, “Government fails to act neutrally when it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature.” This, to me, is hugely important, because it actually goes beyond Masterpiece; it holds that even a facially neutral regulation — there is no claim that the city of Philadelphia acted with hostility, as is the case with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in Masterpiece — that is “intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature” cannot withstand Constitutional scrutiny.

It is clear that, should the case between Mr Scardina and Masterpiece Cakeshop proceed to the Supreme Court, Mr Phillips will, once again, win; Mr Scardina is not, by the refusal of Mr Phillips to bake his ridiculous cake, prevented from having his ‘transition’ cake to celebrate his birthday baked at all. It is simply that Mr Phillips will not bake it. In Fulton v Philadelphia, it was made clear that, Catholic Social Services not being the only provider of foster care and adoption referrals, homosexual couples or unmarried persons would not be denied the possibility of becoming foster or adoptive parents,[3]It is the opinion of The First Street Journal that only legally married heterosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children, though I would make an exception for unmarried persons who are … Continue reading and the Inquirer article notes that Bethany Christian Services chose to change its Christian-based policies to continue to provide such services to the city.

There is a significant difference between conservatives and the left here. Conservatives have not been trying to prevent Mr Scardina from having anyone bake his pink-inside-of-blue cake; they simply hold that if a particular individual does not want to bake it, that is his right. We are (mostly) willing to live and let live. I have no objection to Mr Scardina calling himself a woman; I simply would not call him one myself, and I would object to any government regulation specifying that I must do so.

For the left, that ain’t good enough. The left want to use the force of government and the police power of the state to require everyone to go along with their particular beliefs, even trying to consume Harry Potter author J K Rowling, a very liberal woman herself, for not being #woke enough to accept the notion of transgenderism.

This is why surrendering to the left on language is such a bad idea; ever inch given leads to another mile demanded. Even as conservative an author as Mrs Bookout gave in to the language of the left by referring to Mr Scardina as “she” at one point. My Stylebook has not been adopted by any other source of which I am aware, but conservatives should look at it, and consider following it as they can.

References

References
↑1 Yes, you may infer from my placing the word ‘marriage’ in single quotation marks that I do not believe that, though legal, a homosexual ‘marriage’ constitutes a real marriage.
↑2 In accordance with The First Street Journal’s Stylebook, we always refer to those who claim to be ‘transgender’ by their birth name and with the pronouns appropriate to their biological sex. From the references I have found, “Charlie” appears to be Mr Scardina’s birthname, but the references do not actually specify that.
↑3 It is the opinion of The First Street Journal that only legally married heterosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children, though I would make an exception for unmarried persons who are already close relatives, as long as they are heterosexual.
Posted on by

Resistance is not futile. I will not be assimilated.

Is National Public Radio supposed to be an advocacy reporting organization? Is NPR supposed to push a particular political point of view?

NPR’s Laurel Wamsley, who purports to be a journalist, wrote an article entitled A Guide To Gender Identity Terms, in which she presented the “proper use of gender identity terms.”

Issues of equality and acceptance of transgender and nonbinary people — along with challenges to their rights — have become a major topic in the headlines. These issues can involve words and ideas and identities that are new to some.

That’s why we’ve put together a glossary of terms relating to gender identity. Our goal is to help people communicate accurately and respectfully with one another.

Proper use of gender identity terms, including pronouns, is a crucial way to signal courtesy and acceptance. Alex Schmider, associate director of transgender representation at GLAAD, compares using someone’s correct pronouns to pronouncing their name correctly – “a way of respecting them and referring to them in a way that’s consistent and true to who they are.”

This guide was created with help from GLAAD. We also referenced resources from the National Center for Transgender Equality, the Trans Journalists Association, NLGJA: The Association of LGBTQ Journalists, Human Rights Campaign, InterAct and the American Psychological Association. This guide is not exhaustive, and is Western and U.S.-centric. Other cultures may use different labels and have other conceptions of gender.

Yeah, that’s an unbiased group!

But, Mr Schmider did tell the truth in one important way. Using a ‘transgendered persons’ preferred pronouns and sexual identity terms is meant to be “respecting them and referring to them in a way that’s consistent and true to who they are.” Miss Wamsley put it as “a crucial way to signal courtesy and acceptance.” At bottom, it is an attempt to coerce “acceptance” by claiming it is only courtesy.

The unasked question is — and the author never added anything in to her article which would have paid any attention to those who disagree — what if someone does not accept the idea that Bruce Jenner is really now a woman, or that anyone can somehow change his sex?

It begins with a falsehood. “Sex,” Miss Wamsley wrote, “refers to a person’s biological status and is typically assigned at birth, usually on the basis of external anatomy. Sex is typically categorized as male, female or intersex.” This is wholly untrue. While we might forgive His Majesty King Henry VIII for believing that Catherine of Aragon or Anne Boleyn were somehow responsible for his first two children being daughters, the role of the X and Y chromosomes in determining the sex of mammals, including humans, has been known for over a century. Sex is not somehow “assigned” at birth; sex is determined at conception, depending upon whether the sperm which fertilized the egg carries the X or Y chromosome. We recognize the sex of a newborn child by visual examination of the child, but the characteristics which indicate sex developed long before birth, during gestation, as programmed in by the developing child’s DNA.

When you read or hear someone talking about sex being assigned at birth, you know automatically the pure bovine feces is about to follow.

Everyone has pronouns that are used when referring to them – and getting those pronouns right is not exclusively a transgender issue.

“Pronouns are basically how we identify ourselves apart from our name. It’s how someone refers to you in conversation,” says Mary Emily O’Hara, a communications officer at GLAAD. “And when you’re speaking to people, it’s a really simple way to affirm their identity.”

“So, for example, using the correct pronouns for trans and nonbinary youth is a way to let them know that you see them, you affirm them, you accept them and to let them know that they’re loved during a time when they’re really being targeted by so many discriminatory anti-trans state laws and policies,” O’Hara says.

“It’s really just about letting someone know that you accept their identity. And it’s as simple as that.”

Well, yes it is . . . and I don’t. When Bruce Jenner tells me that he is now a woman, I do not believe him and I do not accept his claims. To refer to him as “Caitlyn,” to use the feminine pronouns in reference to him, is to concede something I do not and will not concede; it would be both lying to him, leading him to believe that I went along with his claims, and it would be lying to myself.

But, at least Miss Wamsley was sort of asking us to use the terms the transgender would like. It was November 29, 2018, that The New York Times granted OpEd space to Chad Malloy[1]Chad Malloy is a male who claims to be a woman, going by the name ‘Parker’ Malloy. to publish an article claiming that Twitter’s ban on ‘deadnaming’ and misgendering[2]‘Deadnaming’ refers to using the name a person was given at birth, such as Chad Malloy rather than his faux name of ‘Parker’ Malloy, while misgendering means referring to … Continue reading actually promotes free speech rather than stifling it. On October 4, 2019, the Times published an OpEd by staffer Andrew J Marantz, entitled Free Speech Is Killing Us. Noxious language online is causing real-world violence. What can we do about it?

Messrs Marantz and Malloy obviously believe that what hey can do about it is simply to ban any publication of speech with which they disagree. If I say that no, Mr Malloy is not a woman, I have not harmed him, at least not beyond hurting his precious little feelings, nor have I prevented anyone else from going along with his claims of being a woman; all that I would be doing is being truthful to myself.

It does not matter how well or how poorly this article is written; neither The New York Times nor any other outlet of the credentialed media would ever publish it, because they have established transgenderism as part of their core beliefs. In publishing Miss Wamsley’s article in its present form, it becomes clear that NPR has done so as well.

To control language is to control the terms of the debate, and the credentialed media clearly believe that if they can just get people to refer to Bradley Manning as ‘Chelsea,’ to get people to use the preferred gender identity pronouns and terms in reference to the ‘transgendered,’ such concessions will go a long way to validating their argument.

But I will not, and I urge others to look at what they are saying, and how they are saying it, and not to go along with the left’s attempts at controlling speech.
______________________________________
Cross posted on American Free News Network.

References

References
↑1 Chad Malloy is a male who claims to be a woman, going by the name ‘Parker’ Malloy.
↑2 ‘Deadnaming’ refers to using the name a person was given at birth, such as Chad Malloy rather than his faux name of ‘Parker’ Malloy, while misgendering means referring to someone by his biological sex rather than his preferred ‘gender identity.’