The transgender agenda: forcing us to lie

Written by Dale O’Leary. Re-posted from Mercatornet (pictures added).

no-men-in-womens-spacesThe USA is in the midst of what has been called the “bathroom wars”; however, access to bathrooms and locker rooms of the opposite sex for the so-called transgendered is only a means to an end. The real objective can be discerned from ACLU’s press release supporting U.S. Department of Education’s demand that the Palatine High School in Illinois (and by extension all schools receiving federal funds) allow a boy, who wants to be accepted as a girl, unrestricted access to the girls’ locker room.

The transgendered and their supporters claim that people are merely assigned a sex at birth, their gender identity (how they feel) may or may not match their assigned sex. The goal is to force everyone to accept that gender identity should take precedence over the biological reality of sexual identity and men who claim to be women should be treated as though they were women.

The ACLU complained that the school district challenged their “client’s identity as a girl,” which is true because their client is not a girl, but a boy. According to the ACLU, all “she wants to be accepted for who she is.” The problem is that he wants to be accepted for who he is not. Their client claims that not allowing him to change with the girls stigmatizes him, “making me feel like I was not a normal person.” The simple answer is that it is not normal for a male to want to be accepted as female.

The Bruce Jenner celebrity blitz and the battle over bathrooms, have brought the issue of gender to the fore and people are wondering how we got to the point where boys who think they are girls can use the girls’ locker room. What happened to common sense?

Unfortunately, many people thought that gender was just a synonym for sex, and could be substituted for it without causing any harm. However, for activists on the far left, sex and gender are not the same. Sex is biologically determined. Gender is socially constructed and does not have to correspond to sex. There are two sexes –male and female, but an unlimited number of genders. Once identity is divorced from reality, chaos ensues, fantasy rules.

The Obama administration is determined to force everyone to accept the demands of transgender activists. Girls would have to pretend that they are comfortable with a boy who wants to be a girl using the girls’ locker room, because if girls complain or show any sign of disapproval, they will be judged guilty of “transphobic discrimination”. Everyone would have to accept that wanting to be the other sex or believing that one can become the other sex is just normal diversity, when in fact it is a symptom of disordered thinking. Even if a person doesn’t believe that people can change their sex, he would have to pretend they do and call what is obviously a male a woman. The media has accepted this demand. using feminine pronouns for Bruce Jenner, who in spite of all the make-up, surgery, clothes and fancy photographers is still male.

Transgendered persons point to the psychological suffering they endure because people don’t accept them. Their suffering is real. They are engaged in a comprehensive denial of reality. Such a denial is hard to sustain as they must continually shut out the truth. The transgendered delight in “passing” – being accepted as the opposite sex in public. It hurts to be told that even if they can pass they are not and can never truly be the other sex.

The government does not have the right to force a citizen to say something he knows is a lie or to be silent in the face of evil. The people have a right to freedom of speech, which includes the right to speak the truth, even if the truth hurts another person’s feelings. So-called “hate speech” rules are unacceptable because they allow one group to veto the speech of another.

Some may argue that this is just about words, but as G. K. Chesterton said, words “are the only thing worth fighting about.” Careless use of language caused this mess and needs to be remedied, first by never saying gender when you mean sex.

The mass culture has been socially-ngineered.The school under attack tried to accommodate the boy who wanted to be a girl. This was a mistake. They should have told the parents that their son is a boy and must use the boys’ facilities. If this is not possible, he needs counseling. Halfway accommodation won’t work; the Department of Education demands total capitulation. The defenders of the reality of sex difference should learn from this mistake. They cannot compromise the truth. They should not force the other students to accept the lie that gender trumps sex, just to avoid hurting a troubled boy’s feelings.

The LGBTQ activists and their ACLU lawyers are not tolerant liberals who respect other people’s rights. They are pushing a type of political correctness which is a manifestation of a totalitarian, Marxist-influenced ideology. Theodore Dalrymple, an expert on totalitarian societies explains how activists triumph:

In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed.

The girls forced to accept a boy in their private space are being targeted for just this kind of humiliation. This is about much more than bathrooms.

Dale O’Leary is a US writer with a special interest in psychosexual issues and is the author of two books: One Man, One Woman and The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality. She blogs at What Does the Research Really Say?

Originally posted on Mercatornet, 12 May 2016.

Advertisements

41 thoughts on “The transgender agenda: forcing us to lie

  1. I am increasingly suspecting this whole thing of being some kind of stalking horse. The theory being tested would be how much obviously untrue claims can you get people to accept?

    Liked by 3 people

  2. In order for gender abolitionists to win this fight, we need to be discerning about who our potential allies are (and who they are not). And women who are publicly in favour of reinforcing women and girls as the sex class are not potential allies.

    Some quick googling about Dale O’Leary reveals:

    she is anti-abortion
    she is anti-lesbian
    she is in favour of compulsory heterosexuality
    she is anti-feminist
    she is in favour of father-right

    Just one example:

    Although really, the weird anti-marxist mention and the drop-in of “political correctness” also make that clear. “Political correctness” being a rightwing dogwhistle that rose to prominence during the 1990s, being used to suggest that the oppressed (eg racialised people and women) were now in charge and were clamping down on individuals’ freedoms.  (Individuals being white men, since they don’t consider anyone else to really be people.)

    Also it’s interesting that it’s a society which isn’t based on hierarchy that is considered to be most in need of using “propaganda” and to humiliate people the most.

    And given that transgenderism is based on the conservative idea that people who appear to flout socially-prescribed sex roles are really the other sex – and is very neoliberal in advocating “choose your gender” (the profiteering of various industries from this being, of course quite incidental) – describing it as ‘marxist’ is understandable for conservatives. It allows them to sidestep and deflect responsibility for this immensely damaging phenomenon. Which someone like O’Leary would want to do, given her extremely homophobic, anti-female politics.

    What is more perplexing is why gender abolitionists go along with this. Transsexualism and transgenderism have been pushed earliest by states with very homophobic regimes, and are now heavily pushed by surgical and pharmaceutical interests. Certainly, many self-described socialists have recently jumped on board this, but all this proves is their succumbing to conservatism. It doesn’t explain how transgenderism is inherently a “marxist” phenomenon. Especially given marxism’s focus on overthrowing the material bases of misery and oppression, in contrast to transgenderism’s neoliberal individualistic approach.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. I, personally, am terrified that gender abolitionists are becoming allies in the “bathroom wars” with the far right. In the discussion on the new NC law, the fact that they overrode ALL local gay rights protections rarely gets mentioned. This transgender movement is the antithesis of all the progress we have made. It enforces gender roles and is inherently anti gay. I’m a 52 year old lesbian on the butch end of the spectrum in rural Northern Maine and I’m being asked what pronouns I want to use. I’m being erased because apparently, I’m now a trans guy, not a lesbian. Using the bathroom has never been fun, but it’s becoming more dangerous for me as transgender issues are now in the news every day. I don’t want some guy in a dress using the women’s bathroom to validate his “identity”, but I don’t want to align with social conservatives who want to drag advancements in gay and women’s rights backwards. As soon as they “resolve” the transgender issue, the Right will use their success and momentum to immediately turn on us. Anything that strengthens them, weakens us. To me, that’s the real threat.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. These posts in a nutshell are what is wrong with the so-called “left.” All you do is react kneejerk. Well, the right is this and this, and therefore they are always wrong, so I have to be contrary because I don’t want to be seen as a right-winger. Guess what? There are many issues where the self-described left is wrong. LOTS of issues. Transgenderism is one of them. Prostitution is another. Pornography is another. So-called sexual liberation is another. There are things in this world that cannot be and should not be seen as partisan politics. I guess you don’t understand the degree that the “left” has been hijacked by libertarianism, which is poison all across the political spectrum. I no longer give a shit what the “right” thinks.

        Liked by 4 people

      2. But what these have in common is they are all misogynist agendas. People calling themselves leftists have morphed into libertarians to a great extent in the USA, but that does not mean we should not be wary of being perceived as allying ourselves with cthe religious right. They are two discrete political groups but that does not mean one is to be trusted over the other.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. I will add that issues should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, not on some broad brush litmus test. That is my point. I don’t care what the right does. Thanks to demographics, they are on the wane. What I do care about are the millennials, while liberal have some truly screwed-up ideas. Gender identity is one of many where they are wrong.

        Liked by 3 people

      4. I was writing last night about how debate on transgenderism (and indeed on pornstitution and attitudes about sex genderally) has turned into one about who owns the left. The responses I’ve been getting on this subject are (a) there is no left in the USA anymore, and (b) the left is overwhelmingly favoring misogynist agendas. So I can understand your frustration, but that doesn’t mean the theory is bad. It just means the name has been widely appropriated and corrupted, like “feminist.”

        Like

      5. This is becoming an important discussion. In the absence of much overt leftist resistance to transgenderism, it’s terribly tempting to share the work of anybody who criticizes it. People in medicine (Paul McHugh comes to mind) write reasonable critiques of it and they seem like water in the desert, but a lot of these critiques are coming from classic genderists, i.e. conservatives. So there is that “lie down with dogs, get up with fleas” problem.

        My local paper here in a small mining town in Little Texas ran a piece about how the Obama ruling was being accepted locally, and quoted a woman saying she thought “man and man” was wrong. We’re pretty typical here of such small Southern towns, I expect, and so what you have is people who still think it’s all homosexuality, i.e. all perversion in their eyes (GNC people included) and their spokespeople writing antitransgender pieces with a lot of dogwhistle things going on against true liberationist agendas. The neolibs posing as leftists call us conservatives and it’s certainly possible that parts of the right think we can be wooed. That needs to be nipped in the bud. So yeah, we should all be doing searches on unknowns before we quote them, and if we must quote them anyway, include caveats about the source, I suppose.

        Liked by 1 person

      6. This is a response to comments about this being a left-wing issue. I am a liberal and I disagree. Social Justice Warriors may call themselves leftists (as Jenner calls himself Caitlin), but real liberals support free speech, due process, the presumption of innocence and the rules of law and evidence.

        SJWs and trans activists operate by bullying targeted individuals and only go through official channels to demand that due process be circumvented to more rapidly destroy their target. SJWs cloak their demands with claims of offended sensitivities, as they shout, curse, isolate and intimidate their target.

        SJWs and trans activists treat every transgression – or even honest questions – as if they have the most nefarious possible motive. This terrible habit is indulged in by people on other parts of the political spectrum as well (like members of congress who met on the night of Obama’s first inauguration to pledge to do everything to thwart the new president, even if he was proposing an idea that originated in the GOP, such as requiring citizens to buy health insurance from private corporations)

        I think it’s important, if we are going to have a rational society that we must stop the bitter squabbling about left and right wings, and reach across partisan divides, and recognize that what some call the regressive left are not really liberals, but authoritarians whose only tool is bullying and whose only goal is to shut down free speech, shut down public policy based on demonstrable evidence and shut down the the rule of law.

        Like

      7. There is a certain amount of libertarianism masquerading as the left, as well. One way I have seen this debate framed as far as the USA goes, is whether the problem is that the left runs misogynist and always has, or whether the left has simply been replaced by fake leftists and is actually dead for all practical purposes. I agree with you entirely that this is not the Left I was raised to love and respect, but at the same time, there have been many examples of male heroes of that left who have behaved misogynistically. That doesn’t mean leftist analysis and feminist analysis can’t meet, it just means that in coed organizing, women still tend to come last, as gender conditioning runs very deep and we do not have exactly the same issues as men do, and in fact are in opposition on a critical one: who decides who is born. I expect it’s a rare man who can say honestly that he believes no man should have any say in this.

        Like

      8. Did you just claim that all women (natal women, leaving trans women alone for the moment) who do not agree a woman should have absolute power to “decide who is born” are somehow not women, or traitors to womanhood or whatever?

        I don’t just mean pro-life women, but also women who believe in *some* abortion restrictions (such as the viability standard of Roe/Casey). That would be the majority of women, I think.

        Like

      9. Deciding who is born is a fundamental conflict between men and women because men cannot give birth, and that is a double-edged sword, of course. Deciding when a human becomes a person with the right not to be killed is a matter of individual culture and politics. When does the social contract apply to humans? At conception, at the point a fetus is potentially viable outside the womb, when the nervous system is developed to a certain extent, at birth? There indeed do exist different opinions among women as to this question, but that doesn’t change what I said, that the fundamental conflict is about who gets to decide who is born, whose genes get passed on, and that plays out primarily along a sexual axis.

        Also we have no way of knowing how women would think about this (as a class) if we were not indoctrinated with patriarchal concepts from an early age. In a nonpatriarchal culture, there would likely be far fewer unwanted pregnancies and much more easily available ways to terminate pregnancies early, and these techniques would not be controlled by a largely male-dominated medicine, either. Since we don’t have a culture like that to compare ourselves to, we can only conjecture what women’s attitudes towards abortion might be, but certainly women’s attitudes towards pregnancy in general would be quite different in some crucial ways.

        Like

      10. Also is there a definition of “true leftism” somewhere? If true leftism is basically Bolshevism, then, yes, it nearly does not exist in the US, and is only at the margins in Western Europe.

        As for “libertarians” – it appears that radfems tend to call all individualists libertarians? I was an actual libertarian, I was a member of the International Society for Individual Liberty (past organizers are probably horrified at the organization using the same acronym now). I stopped being a libertarian because I realized the libertarian *economic* model does not work. It does not advance the cause of liberty of the individual human despite being philosophically based on it; it advances corporations instead while creating conditions for actual enslavement of individuals.

        And real life libertarian organizations place libertarian economics very high on the agenda. Someone who believes that at least human survival should be ensured by a state safety net, and that the human-corporation relationship needs some state buoying up for the human to be anywhere close to equal, has no place in the libertarian movement. So if such a person believes in some other libertarian tenets, from a firm rejection of aggressive war to freedom of human choice in intimate matters, they are not offered any place anywhere except the Left and will gravitate there by default.

        So, yes, the Left, especially in the USA, will have many people you would describe as libertarians. But neither these people nor actual card-carrying libertarians would agree they are libertarians.

        Why are identities starting with L generating so much debate? Left. Libertarian. Lesbian. (I hope the left-handed folks and lumberjacks will not be affected).

        Like

      11. I see a lot of people who would like to believe they are less heartless than actual libertarians, but whose main thrust is still towards protecting individual right to self-expression, with no particular regard to how such self-expression might infringe on other people’s boundaries. The complete lack of class analysis inherent in such views rules out their being leftists.

        I have less sense all the time as to what “liberal” even means. It’s become either an identity or a pejorative, but as far as systems of thought go, it tends towards emphasizing individual freedoms while paying only lip service to any sense of attacking hierarchy. There is a general sense that safety nets should be preserved, it is true, but that may be more a matter of tradition than anything. And simply common sense: some things in collective enterprises just work better when collectivised. Introducing a profit motive leads to cutting corners. This makes such people better thinkers than libertarians, but I don’t know that it makes them leftists.

        Like

      12. You have described my position, actually. Except I d not just passively “lack” class analysis but am actively hostile to it, thanks to growing up under it in the USSR.

        I agree people like me are not real leftists – never said otherwise. The problem is, if I were in the US, I’d have no option but to be a leftist politically. And a pretty “hard”, Bernie leftist, too, because the Clinton leftists are pro-war.

        I just disagree about the “libertarian” label, because this label belongs to a very specific position. There is a Libertarian Party, and while small-l libertarianism is larger, you really *can’t* be a libertarian without – at the very least – believing in the inherent right of private property, and most likely basing the concept of individual rights specifically on “self-ownership”. This is not some bogeyman, this is how libertarians define themselves. So someone like me, believing in individual liberty but not in natural property, and deriving individual liberty from human dignity not from self-ownership, is simply not a libertarian. “Classical liberal”, possibly.

        Having said that: the majority of visible pro-trans Left activists are not classical liberals either. Nor are they Leftists in your definition – collectivists with an analysis based on objective class (Marxist-Leninist). The correct word is, I think, actually “Progressivism”. But it sort of fell out of vogue and now they call themselves “left” or “liberal”. Progressivism believes in uplifting of marginalized groups, in defining “privilege” and trying to dilute and remove it, instead of the Marxist principle of class struggle.

        Progressivism is far less revolutionary than Marxism. Some Progressives play the revolutionary card but not really, because, unlike Marxism-Leninism, Progressivism is unable to create a top-down “Democratic Centralist” party structure necessary to run a revolution.

        A key tenet of Progressivism is “group rights”. (For a classical liberal like me rights pertain to individuals. For a Marxist-Leninist rights are mostly a distraction, there is an objective change to be fought for.)

        Classical liberals have an advantage in countries with Anglo-American legal systems. While we are not so numerous these days, the law is written from our perspective. For example, the Obergefell v. Hodges decision is one big vindication of a classical liberal outlook on personal identity, and redefines marriage based on that (the decision actually warmed me to same-sex marriage, because, yes, it;s a redefnition, but it’s *our* redefinition). Compare other teachings:

        – For a collectivist Leftist, marriage is an institution to be abolished, or else defined as the Class needs (the rest depends on what Class that is – a Stalinist will use a traditional definition to make more workers and soldiers, a radfem will not)

        – For a Progressive, same-sex marriage is vindication of gay rights. People belong to groups like “straight”, “gay”, “bisexual”, and same-sex marriage removes certain restrictions on the latter two groups.

        So if you see the political Left in the USA as a conflation of Progressives, some classical liberals on one margin, and some “traditional” collectivist Leftists on the other margin, perhaps it might make more sense? (And read US “liberal” without a qualifier as a codeword for “Progressive”).

        Like

    2. O’Leary has been around for many decades. Some people do change their minds on some issues as they get older. And really, on this nonsense, who can blame sane people for not swallowing it? The “left” has got to get with a plan, but many really don’t care because the so-called left has always had a strong misogynist streak.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “These posts in a nutshell are what is wrong with the so-called “left.” All you do is react kneejerk. Well, the right is this and this, and therefore they are always wrong, so I have to be contrary because I don’t want to be seen as a right-winger.”
        – Excuse me? in the absence of any explanation of what I said that was wrong … and it was clear from what I wrote that I am a gender abolitionist.

        “Guess what? There are many issues where the self-described left is wrong. LOTS of issues. Transgenderism is one of them. Prostitution is another. Pornography is another. So-called sexual liberation is another. There are things in this world that cannot be and should not be seen as partisan politics. I guess you don’t understand the degree that the “left” has been hijacked by libertarianism, which is poison all across the political spectrum.”
        – Again, you appear to be arguing that I need to adopt the Right’s critique of trangenderism because the Left is often wrong. However, I have been around the Left for a long time and am probably more acquainted than you are with its various problems, such as increasing acceptance of the sex-poz viewpoint. I do not need the Right’s (homophobic) position on transgenderism, because I have a (real) leftwing gender abolitionist perspective. It is correct that these are not “partisan” politics in that most political parties endorse transgenderism, but this does not make this an apolitical issue. As I pointed out, transgenderism has come from the right and is still supported by much of it. The fact that the rightwing of the USA is divided on this matter does not change that.
        The Right is on the march around the world, especially in the USA, and women are one of its targets, as shown in the decreasing accessibility of abortion. In this context, it would be ridiculous to get behind the Right on transgenderism, when there is a left gender abolitionist perspective that is actually supportive of women.

        “O’Leary has been around for many decades. Some people do change their minds on some issues as they get older.”
        – well let’s hope, but the point is, these are her politics right now. That screencap was from an article she wrote last month.

        And this illustrates my real concern from your responses, Susan. You appear to have leapt into a kneejerk support of O’Leary that is wholly unnecessary to the gender abolitionist cause, and that relies very much on substituting hopes about what these rightwingers might do, for the reality of what they are doing.

        Like

  3. You should send this article over to GenderTrender. Dale O’Leary is a long-time feminist, a contemporary of people like Germaine Greer and Gloria Steinem. Her work goes back many decades. No doubt she will be no-platformed and all of that other rot.

    Like

  4. The Right is not on the wane. Trump just had the largest voter turnout in the Republican Party’s primary history. And I can assure you they are alive and well here. So called “knee jerk” issues is what rallies the base and gets them to the polls. The other concern is a lot of young liberal voters stayed home in the non presidential election year and conservatives made huge advances in the state legislatures and Congress. They elected that idiot LePage here for a second term as governor.
    I have always felt extremism in any form, be it on the left or the right is dangerous. It quashes rational discourse or disagreement and leaves no room for compromise. I chart my own path on each issue and individual. I’m a liberal, but I’m also pro gun, but I don’t align myself with the NRA. I’m a Democrat, but I’ve voted for Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe because they were moderates.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I, too, live in Maine, and you really need to rethink Snowe and Collins as moderates. They both never met a war they didn’t like, and both went to the Senate to enrich themselves. They had/have good PR persuading Mainers they were/are moderates, but they are the sort of people who have led us to the LePage Age. Oh, yeah, they wouldn’t like being lumped with him because he’s grotesque and vulgar, but in essence they agree with him: Collins voting against equal pay for women, both anti-union, both pro-corporate capitalism, pro-war, pro-militarism, etc, etc.

      Just because someone’s female doesn’t make them decent human beings.

      Like

  5. I must sadly disengage from this blog, in spite of many useful posts I have read here. I am a Marxist and I find strange the use of the words “Marxist” and “left” to describe transgender ideology.

    Like

    1. You might consider taking this up with those droves of unexamined libertarianish guys running around insisting they’re leftists. A lot of us would appreciate that.

      Like

  6. That last paragraph about “communist societies” is weird. What has this all to do with Marxism?

    The part about totalitarian states forcing citizens to take part in the evil is correct, I think, but it’s not only (allegedly …) communist states that do this. The nazis also told obvious lies and were very keen on getting people to participate in the evil.

    It is a type of psychological warfare, and one I do think is applied by the genderism activists.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Here’s what I find baffling in the bathroom wars:

    NY State did a study a while back in which they determined that women’s rooms have longer lines than men’s rooms for some physical reasons: women pee more frequently than men, women have to shift more clothing to pee, women frequently have to deal with menstrual hygiene (and the ones past menopause pee more frequently) and women often have children with them. This led to the potty parity law, where NY State requires public buildings to have a 60/40 toilet split.

    If what the transexual men who wish to be women “just want a place to pee” – as they often claim, why would they choose the more crowded option?

    Why, in cases where a 3rd bathroom or locker room option is offered, do transsexual men who wish to be women respond with anger? If someone offered me a less crowded restroom, I’d be delighted. I hate experiences like missing 40 minutes of a concert I paid to attend because of the lines at the ladies’ room.

    Also, I’ve lately heard claims that MTTs feel they are in danger in men’s rooms. But before they out themselves, and are living as boys &/or men, didn’t they use the men’s room? When does the men’s room suddenly become dangerous? And wouldn’t making all ladies’ rooms open to all adults with no distinction based on sex or even gendered clothing mean that those men who put the MTTs in such danger could just follow the MTTs into the women’s room?

    ——–

    Also, I have lately been hearing a lot of this “Before I transitioned, I was living a lie.”

    How is a person with XY chromosomes and a penis who dresses and acts like a boy “living a lie”? How is a man who puts on dresses and wigs (or grows his hair) but doesn’t get genital surgery and calls himself a woman “living a truth”?

    If that person decides he’s no longer a woman but is now Napoleon, will we put him in charge of France? If he claims to be the Pope, will we let him tell all the Catholics of the world what to do?

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Yeah, you nailed it. What’s really going on is only men who perform masculinity properly are considered people, so their bathroom space is considered sacrosanct, while all the non-men can just use whatever is left. And menstruating women shouldn’t be out in public anyway, like back in the good old days, I’m sure there is an underlying element of such thought.

      A real man would never be caught dead using a ladies’ room, is the idea. Though men who subscribe to such notions as “real man” aren’t any less likely to be abusive, or even crossdress, but it’s just “non-men” who are the victims, and who cares about them?

      Liked by 1 person

    2. It has nothing to do being able to pee. If they can use the women’s room, it is an outward validation of their gender identity. It would damage their fragile mental state if they are forced to use a restroom that corresponds to their sex. When you live inside of a delusion, you can’t allow anything to challenge your fantasy. I suspect they must expend an enormous amount of mental energy, and are constantly under stress, trying to pass.
      As for the other question, in their paradigm, a penis magically becomes a female organ if the man it’s attached to says he’s a woman. Very few of these men give up the one thing their lives revolve around-their penis.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. The reblogged post is currently top on Dale’s blog and here’s the one immediately under it:

    https://daleoleary.wordpress.com/2016/05/11/a-talk-on-gender-and-education/

    “For me, this was the beginning. I committed myself to the battle to protect our children, and in pursuit of this goal I discovered the gender agenda. According to gender ideology while sex is biological, gender is the way we self-identify. Gender, they claim, is socially constructed, can be changed and doesn’t have to be the same as biological sex. For gender ideologues, equality means that all differences between men and women should be eliminated so that women and men participate in all activities in statistically equal numbers. They are particularly offended by the fact that when two people are sexually intimate only one gets pregnant and it’s always the woman. Therefore, for them, contraception and abortion are a priority. Likewise, if there are no differences between men and women, then there is no reason why two men or two women can’t be sexually intimate. If gender is constructed, then people can change their gender. Thus the gender ideology supports lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and recently queer rights. Those who self-identify as queer don’t want to be tied down to any particular orientation or identity. Any identity, any sexual partner, any sexual act is okay. The gender ideology is totalitarian by nature. It uses Marxist theory and strategy. Since students are expected to believe things which are obviously untrue, the gender ideologues need absolute control. No opposing views are allowed. If students voice doubts, they are shamed into silence.”

    This is not obsolete, the blog is regularly updated.

    Like

  9. Another quote from the same post, explaining just what the author means by “lies”:

    “We must teach them how to be compassionate without compromising the truth. We must explain to them that love cannot lie. We cannot call killing an unborn child a woman’s choice. We cannot call the relationship between two persons of the same sex marriage. We cannot call a man a woman even if he has had surgical alterations. We must be people of truth. We will not lie.”

    In general I do recommend that anyone reading the post you reposted also read that other post in its entirety. It gives full context.

    Like

  10. So how come the only members of the animal kingdom with a “gender spectrum” are humans? Where are the transgender dairy cows that are really really bulls on the inside? Where are the boy house cats that will only wear pink collars?

    Oh, but I keep forgetting – trans-feelz are so much more important than anything on earth that reality is irrelevant.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. So if the ob-gyn presiding over a human being’s birth “assigns” a gender based on a cursory glance at the baby’s external genitalia, who is assigning genders to all the wild animals and flowering plants that do not seem to exhibit any “gender spectrum” and – except for exceptionally rare birth defects, basically the genital equivalent of thalidomide babies – clearly reproduce via the combination of germ cells from 2 individuals of opposite sexes.

    Like

    1. Nobody assigns genders to wild animals, but they still do exhibit gender, not just sex. Sex is biology, gender is behaviour. So when male cats get territorial, when female cats protect kittens, when female mantids (sometimes) eat the male – they are all exhibiting gender, whole they exhibit sex as they mate and as the females give birth.

      Transgender animals would be animals that exhibit gender normaly (as in, in the clear majority of cases) associated with the other sex. And these animals actually exist.

      Like

Comments are closed.