When I ran across this article on Facebook, I truly thought it must be either dizinformazia, or an article culled from The Onion.
After a little side research, I determined this to be the genuine article. By a genuine LGBT activist. Who is quite obviously NOT a libertarian!
Famous LGBT Activist Reveals The Scary, Real Goal Of The Bathroom Battle (And It’s Not Bathrooms…It’s Way Worse)
What you may have been suspecting has been confirmed. LGBT activists’ end goal is not ruling over the bathroom. It’s obliterating the family. Riki Wilchins, a famous transsexual who recently wrote a piece in the gay publication The Advocate, revealed that many conservatives and even LGBT activists are missing the forest for the trees.
Titled,“We’ll Win the Bathroom Battle When the Binary Burns,” Wilchins says the real goal is to kill the notion of male and female altogether. The “binary” refers to gender distinction, and getting rid of the “heterobinary structure” is the goal. Wilchins writes that the fact that we are arguing over male and female facilities is proof that we still have far to go–that there should be no gender distinctions in general.
In fact, Wilchins points to an emerging group of people who don’t want to affiliate as any gender. Life Site News explains, “’Non-binary’ people don’t identify as male or female and they often want to be referred to as ‘they’ or ‘hir’ or ‘zer.’ So the fact that there are even intimate facilities that reflect the “binary” truth about gender should change, Wilchins wrote.”
If you are confused, you are not alone. But beneath all of the titles and non-titles, the insidious plan is the destruction of the family, reveals Stella Morabito, senior contributor to The Federalist.
“What we are really talking about is the abolition of sex. And it is sex that the trans project is serving to abolish legally, under the guise of something called ‘the gender binary.’ Its endgame is a society in which everyone is legally de-sexed. No longer legally male or female. And once you basically redefine humanity as sexless you end up with a de-humanized society in which there can be no legal ‘mother’ or ‘father’ or ‘son’ or ‘daughter’ or ‘husband’ or ‘wife’ without permission from the State. Government documents are already erasing the terms. In such a society, the most intimate human relationships take a hit. The family ends up abolished.”
Morabito hits home the point: “Sex distinctions are the germ of all human relationships. Abolishing them legally basically abolishes family autonomy. And this is an act of violence against children because it would serve at some point to separate them from their origins. Every child’s first transcendental question is ‘Where did I come from?’ If the law will not allow the child to see his own origins and wholeness in the faces of a mother and a father, it destabilizes the child’s sense of self. It creates personal dysfunction in children and basically ends up spreading more dysfunction and even dystopia in society.”
This is scary. If Morabito and other cultural watch-dogs are right, the bathroom battle is far more serious than many think. We need to really pray and ask God for help–before it’s too late and our future generations end up really damaged. Do you agree? (Faith Family America)
SO. Either Ms. Wilchins is a dystopian uber-Statist of the first order, or is a deepest cover agent promoting such nonsense reductio ad absurdum*!
I truly hope it is the second choice offered.
If this is indeed the true ultimate agenda, it goes way beyond men ‘self-identifying’ as female to visit women’s rooms and/or taking surreptitious photos of women and girls, or worse!
But, as The President is taking a hard line on this issue, ‘blackmailing’ the States to conform to this agenda in their schools, or lose federal funding(!), and many believe him to be a variety of Marxist…
*Reductio ad absurdum
Reductio ad absurdum, also known as argumentum ad absurdum, is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance. (Wikipedia)
…or your mustache or surfboard. Your choice. :-)
(from Free North Carolina)
Aristotle taught that “To the size of states there is a limit, as there is to other things, plants, animals, implements, for none of these things retain their natural power when they are too large or too small.”1 In this paper I want to explore Hume’s views on the proper size and scale of political order.
Size and scale are not the same thing. The scale of a thing is the size appropriate to its function. Scale for human things is the human body and its capacities. Classical architects have longed explored the relation between the human frame, its sensory capacities, and the proper size of doors, windows, courtyards, gardens, the width of streets, plazas, and so forth.
What is the proper size and scale of political order? The answer depends on what we think the function of political order is. Plato and Aristotle thought the function of political association is to achieve human excellence. Since virtue is acquired through emulation of character, face to face knowledge is required of political participants, and this places a limit on the size of the polity.
Aristotle said it should contain “the largest number which suffices for the conduct of life, and can be taken in at a single view.”2 Another classical measure was that one should be able to walk across the polity in a single day. The ancient Greek republics were of this human size and scale.
I’ve asked this question previously. What is the function of political order? (government?) Is it to ‘nanny’ the population into some pre-determined ideal – pre-determined by the (almighty, all-knowing) government? Or is it to allow individuals to be FREE; free to make their own choices and mistakes, and perhaps learn from them? Or not? THEIR choice?
And allow them to follow whatever path they choose, as long as it doesn’t impinge on the ability of others to follow THEIR path?
Sadly, I believe most Americans are so fed-up by the ongoing political machine that they don’t care. And, anyway, they are too busy trying to eke out an existence for themselves and their families, with the ever-present demon of surveillance and taxation wolves at the door. Or already inside.
How many different taxes and fees are you forced to pay? And how many agencies are recording your movements, actions and attitudes, through direct physical surveillance, monitoring email, cell phones and social media? Information many times given up by you voluntarily.
What kind of political order do YOU want?
And do you even have a choice, anymore?
from Brock Townsend:
Few, if any, currently prominent historians voice unqualified objection to the destruction of Confederate monuments. The most tolerant among them instead suggest that the memorials should remain, but with new explanatory inscriptions offering “context”—a code word that simplifies to: South=Bad, North=Good.
Consider, for example, the contextual marker that might be added to Liberty Hall, former home of Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens. No doubt it would emphasize the racist remarks in his Cornerstone Speech. But I’d wager $100 against a good Cuban cigar that it would ignore his address to the Georgia legislature after the war when he urged the body to adopt laws to protect African-Americans “so that they may stand equal before the law” partly because “we owe [them] a debt of gratitude…”
More pertinently, adding additional perspective to Rebel memorials begs the question of whether the policy should also apply to Yankee monuments. Consider the Lincoln Memorial. A couple of months before he announced the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862 Lincoln met at the White House with African-American leaders and urged that blacks leave the country. He arranged congressional funding for their emigration.
Of course, those who win the wars write the history of said wars.
Would not Washington be viewed as a terrorist if Britain had won?
The difference being, of course, remains: We are all Americans, North and South.
(from Brock Townsend)
One of the most appalling aspects of the current refugee crisis is that persecuted Christian across the Middle East are being completely ignored in favor of Muslim migrants. And when even the world’s most prominent Christian figurehead does nothing to help, but instead worships at the altar of multiculturalism and its “new world order,” what hope is there for Middle East Christians fleeing genocide?
A disturbing report claims that when Pope Francis found out that two of the 12 Muslim refugees he recently planned to take back to the Vatican turned out to be Christians, he “dropped them like a hot potato.”
Roula and Malek Abo, a Christian brother and sister duo who hail from Syria, say they have been “let down” by the Pope after left them behind at a Lesbos refugee camp. They were promised a new life in Italy. According to blogger Geoffrey Grider:
Holy Father, I’m confused? You seem to be more socialist than Catholic, and now more Muslim? Or, at least, more political? (Not that other Pope’s haven’t been political…)
I’d make a list, but it would be REALLY long!
Perhaps, this was just about a photo op?
(Full Disclosure – I was baptized Catholic, but raised away from The Church, largely under the influence of my Presbyterian step-mother. My Father pretended not to care, but was a Catholic in secret. So, I’ve never been confirmed in The Church, and don’t follow the infallible Papacy as God’s Word.)
And then, there’s the whole ‘render unto Caesar’ thing…
Courtesy of The Grey Enigma
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
Seriously, we’re all sitting here watching the USA morph into one giant first world problem.
On Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit Court ruled against a Virginia school district that sought to accommodate a transgender student while also protecting the privacy rights of other students.
The court concluded that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972—which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex—should be interpreted as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity, as a Department of Education letter suggested in 2015. The ruling allows a lawsuit brought by a transgender student to proceed.
The case involves a biological girl who identifies as a boy. The court’s majority explains it this way: “G.G.’s birth-assigned sex, or so-called ‘biological sex,’ is female, but G.G.’s gender identity is male.” Note the scare quotes around what the court calls “so-called ‘biological sex.’” Biological sex, in fact, is precisely what Congress protected.
I’m confused. Certainly there are folks who are ‘gender confused’, as well. I would think the medical community would be the final determinator regarding whether or not a person requires gender reassignment or therapy to resolve the issues (?)
Remember Charles Beaumont? The mystery, horror and science fiction author who wrote about horrible things. Twilight Zone, Night Gallery and Tales from the Unknown have episodes.
Tales from the Unknown had one regarding a little girl who was tortured as a child. Fed from a dog dish, especially when she showed male tendencies. BECAUSE SHE WAS IN FACT ANATOMICALLY MALE!
Charles Beaumont had this done to him when he was a child!
If you have XX chromosomes, you are female. If you have XY chromosomes, you are male. Those with actual chromosome ‘issues’ make up something like 0.3% of the population. Others might need therapy, not reassignment and surgery. Certainly ‘self-identification’ alone contributes to the problem.
If you are confused, seek help.
Of course, this is not easy. Between societal and parental pressures, the media and some person’s agendas. And as for The American Psychological Association? The one that just came out and said adults are naturally attracted to children?! Agendas abound.
I was a father to a daughter. NO WAY IN HELL would I have allowed some five-o-clock-shadowed lummox in a dress to follow her into the ladies room because he ‘self-identified’ as a woman!
Then I saw THIS (one example of many) on Wirecutter’s blog…
Early this morning I was reading Rod Dreher’s blog at the American Conservative and stumbled across yet another dispatch from the utterly absurd bathroom wars. One of his New York City readers wrote in to say that her 14-year-old daughter had just finished dressing in a city locker room when a grown man stepped from the showers wearing only a towel. Girls as young as seven were present, and they were staring at the man with “concerned expressions.” The reader ends her e-mail with, “It sucks to be a parent these days.”
And indeed it does suck, especially when you know that even your friends and alleged allies are simply too timid to act.
(and this is ONE example of MANY where perverts are abusing the ‘good will’ of the courts!)
There was a time when accidentally walking into the ‘wrong’ room was an embarrassing accident, and walking in to view the opposite sex and/or take photos or commit sexual assault was considered a crime!
How many years have gay men and women gotten a thrill out of sharing a restroom or a shower with straights of their own gender? And they were held responsible if they were inappropriate or criminal?
We are through the looking glass, people. And it’s two-way and perverts of all varieties are watching!
The PC police have found a new target. Not satisfied with monuments and flags, the Maryland general assembly recently voted to alter the lyrics to the official State song, James Ryder Randall’s “Maryland, My Maryland.” Lincoln apologist Christian McWhirter penned a piece for Time magazine that labeled the song “dissident.” This is true if using the standard definition of the word, opposition to official policy, especially that of an authoritarian state. Anti-Hitler Germans were dissidents.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, and the rest of the founding generation were dissidents. Anti-Lenin and anti-Stalin Russians were dissidents. Demonstrators at Tiananmen Square were dissidents. It seems dissidents are those usually on the right side of history. Obviously McWhirter disagrees.
Gee. Time magazine. Who knew?
Well, reportedly it has been decided.
Andrew Jackson – (in the negative) Indian fighter, racist, slave owner
(in the positive) competent military leader (the Battle of New Orleans) survived an assassination attempt and beat the would-be assassin with his cane! As President – NO FEDERAL DEBT, STOPPED THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATIONAL BANK!
is being replaced on the Twenty Dollar Bill by
Harriet Tubman – (in the positive) a slave who fought for freedom, used The Underground Railroad, humanitarian, suffragette and Union spy(!)
(in the negative) – ?
Of course, it’s stuff like this which keeps our minds off of ongoing war, terrorism, disease, the upcoming election (with no viable* candidates from either party)
At least that’s their plan.
(or as Iowahawk Twittered, “Founder of the Democratic party replaced by gun-toting Republican”)
I remember a similar dust-up when Benjamin Franklin was replaced on the half dollar coin by JFK. Franklin – (in the positive) scientist, statesman, philosopher. (in the negative) womanizer. JFK – (in the positive) charismatic, anti-communist, conservative-for a Democrat. (in the negative) drug user, womanizer, in bed with the Mob.
*viable – in my view, taking the Presidential oath seriously, i.e. “…preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”[
The IRS is struggling to ensure that illegal immigrants are able to illegally use Social Security numbers for legitimate purposes, the agency’s head told senators on Tuesday, without allowing the numbers to be used for “bad” reasons.
IRS Commissioner John Koskinen made the statement in response to a question from Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., during a session of the Senate Finance Committee about why the IRS appears to be collaborating with taxpayers who file tax returns using fraudulent information. Coats said that his staff had discovered the practice after looking into agency procedures.
“What we learned is that … the IRS continues to process tax returns with false W-2 information and issue refunds as if they were routine tax returns, and say that’s not really our job,” Coats said. “We also learned the IRS ignores notifications from the Social Security Administration that a name does not match a Social Security number, and you use your own system to determine whether a number is valid.”
Well, this explains how someone using a dead Connecticut guys SSN could advance in politics all these years.
(borrowed, with gratitude from Counting Cats in Zanzibar, in part)
From the Fairfax womens pages:
“Namaste is my way of greeting Hindi speaking elders in my hometown Melbourne or a way of saying hello to most people back in India. But hearing namaste chanted by the white yoga instructor to a predominantly white class was unsettling. Really? If the yoga class itself wasn’t white-centric enough, she really had to place the appropriative cherry on top.”
An Indian immigrant in Australia, clearly speaks English, and presumably uses machine woven artificial fibres, electronics, communications equipment and modern transport.
What truly fascinates me about her, and her ilk, is the apparent complete absence of introspection. No evidence she has any concept of how self absorbed, ignorant, irrational, racist or xenophobic this article shows her to be – she uses ‘white’ thirteen times, making it clear skin colour is important to her.
I thought, in a multicultural society, we were supposed to learn from one another. What possible value would such learning be if we are not permitted to make use of anything we do absorb? (…)
(and from the commentary, in part)
Nope. We shouldn’t worry about it ourselves as this is essentially a variation of cultural Marxism in the mold of “White Guilt“.
What we should do is call out left-wing fascists who make such accusations (either direct or indirect) for what they are, race baiters, no better than Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the like.
Aspects of cultural identity, whether in relation to the food we eat, the clothes we wear our the style of hair we prefer are not bound in stone but quite the opposite, being both dynamic and to a certain extent contagious. (…)
The point about multiculturalism is that the multikultis object to blending. They seek to maintain separate cultural identities for different groups and encourage tribalisation of the broader society. The aim is not diversity, but division, and that is what this loon here is encouraging. Her cry is “yoga for the Hindus”.
Multiculturalism is a socially poisonous doctrine which maintains and emphasizes division, and which destroys social cohesion. Far better to promote mutual assimilation. Emphasize commonalities, not differences.
And here in the Colonies, we are continually being told that being White is bad, that being Educated (in the White-man’s way) is bad and that even being an industrialized American is bad!
Because multiculturalism is the Truth and the Light, as is being a Luddite agricultural commune member who decries GMOs and global warming as evils of industrial society.
Oh! And no vaccines, either! Or meat. (it’s murder, ya know).
I see all of this as a distillation of Jean Jacques Rousseau’s love of primitives, to the exclusion of the civilized. (We see this in the veneration of American Indians as somehow more pure that the Eurotrash who conquered them.)
If only we would shed our clothes, and our machines, and return to Nature, all would be wonderful!
“…[N]othing is so gentle as man in his primitive state, when placed by nature at an equal distance from the stupidity of brutes and the fatal enlightenment of civil man”.
Milton: Paradise Lost