Over at the Midwest Conservative Journal,
Bill looks at the whole LGBTXYZ mess and admits he needs to buy a vowel, especially with regard to the construct of "transgender". I very much agree with his assessment that the "average person" needs to take stock and step up to fight the insanity. Excerpt:
We hear all the time that insufficient precautions are taken to prevent harassment against women, and it stands to reason that allowing someone with male sexual organs access to naked girls is tantamount to an invitation to sexual assault. But if denying that same individual free expression of their [1 of 56] sexuality, isn’t that discrimination – at least to the LGBTxyz movement?
If Nick and Justin, a “married” couple with a 15 year old daughter Stacy (by artificial insemination/surrogate mother) are faced with their daughter coming home in tears from school one day and telling them about how she was made to feel trashy by this big, hulking man getting naked in front of her in the locker room and then watching her every move – what do they say to her? Does she have no rights? And, if not, what would it take for her to “get” some rights?
This is all very complex. I’m not trying to brush it off, or dismiss it casually. But the explosion of references to “Transgender” has caught my attention, and I think it’s about time the “average person” took stock of what’s going on around them.
Yes, I quite agree that we must engage this "transgender" issue and do so seriously. Snide ridicule seems to be in order and has worked for some time, but I'm afraid it will no longer. The cultural left has built up enough critical mass using their brainwashed drones on this topic. Face it; if
people are willing to let a person break your skull to support a politically correct view of gender, then we have left the path where a simple call to common sense will suffice to correct the disorder.
The goal of "getting some rights" for the real victims like Stacy in the illustration is the problem
if you see rights as "positive", entitlements people should be given, as most people on the left do. The concept of rights as negative and protective in nature comports better with the old-fashioned, tried-and-true, "Male and female He created them" method of bathroom assignment. Under the entitlement model, everyone is entitled to pick the bathroom which most matches their boutique sexual orientation. Under the rights as protection/negative rights model, everyone has a right to privacy from the opposite sex when they enter the bathroom.
Of course I've already
spoken my mind on what I believe should be the priority on identity in general—including bathrooms—and that is gender. All traditional Christians (as well as Jews and Muslims, I expect) see things this way as well. Orientation can either come first
or second in the mind of the pro-LGBT crowd in the way of priority. So a homosexual who is transgendered sees himself as a woman and wants to use the ladies room, whereas a non-transgendered gay man wants to use the men's room. In order to respect their right, they must be allowed to use whichever bathroom they are comfortable with. It doesn't matter if the current occupants of the bathroom are comfortable. Man, that makes as much sense as
the "traveling public" remarks on getting Ebola on the bus.
Twenty years ago, a previous co-worker of mine used to joke that men didn't speak to each other in the men's room due to what he called
natural homophobia (he was a really funny, insightful guy for a liberal) but now that any sort of homophobia has become one of the only deadly sins a person can commit, it's possible that we'll all be expected to begin chatting about NFL scores or hairstyles as soon as we enter, mixing business with pleasure to show acceptance of all the "56 genders".
I admit I haven't visited that that "56 gender" link. Part of me keeps telling me that even going there is sort of like giving in on the argument. So I'm going to leave that for another time; right now I feel like going on the offensive with something I call my
Plan B. The letter B stands for
bisexual, and I think that the concept of bisexuals being among the other alternative lifestyles represented in LGBT is a key to showing open-minded people how the whole project is simply an attack on traditional values and traditional notions of rights rather than any type of civil-rights effort to stop bullying.
The method I have used in the past generally involves questions. For example: How do I know I'm not a bisexual? I'm attracted to women and I've only ever had sexual relationships with women, but is it possible that I just never met the
right gay man? After all,
they're only 1.6 percent of the population. How often do you have to fluctuate between relationships to be officially bisexual? Once a month for women bisexuals, once a week for men? Is
Anne Heche, for example, bisexual? and does that explain why she only had one lesbian relationship (albeit a very public one with Ellen DeGeneres) and all the rest of her relationships have been with men? One of the reasons I bring up Heche, who I realize is a very troubled person who was possibly abused as a child, is because many members of the LGBT community were upset that she "went straight" and started dating a guy after breaking up with DeGeneres. Well, what if she didn't go straight—what if she went bi when she went bye-bye?
Bisexual is basically a
non-orientation, and this fact can be expressed by asking all these questions along with the big one, "What constitutes being bisexual over and above changing your mind a lot?"
Here are some more: Would a long term, committed relationship for a bisexual require at least three people in a marriage? Would polygamy be required? Or should it be admitted that bisexuals don't really do long term, committed relationships as bisexuals? Is bisexual just a transitional phase that future committed gays go through? Why do some of them appear to end up straight? And how can you explain that orientation is innate if some people are born with a fluctuating orientation?
I'm telling you, the B doesn't really belong in LGBT. It can be used as a sort of symbolic Trojan Horse to expose the sheer chaos inherent in the LGBT agenda and argue for a return to traditional sexual roles and morals. The conundrum for the pro-LGBT folks is that to take it out at this point would be non-inclusive, and they wouldn't want to exclude anybody, would they? Well, other than straight people, I mean.
All of these questions—which I think are great "gotchas" since people don't reason things through very well when their gonads are doing the thinking—ignore a pretty big indoor elephant: what can bisexual
possibly mean if there are 56 sexes? Doesn't the concept of a non-orientation orientation, open the doors pretty wide for the need for more letters? Maybe they should look into the
Zhonghua Zihai.
I'm sure someone on the traditional side of things has brought this whole thing up before, and I know it is discussed as a problem in gay and lesbian circles due to a recent anecdote I heard. And not being someone who wants to immerse myself in gay press and literature, I have no idea if they have standard responses to my "Plan B" (other than to call be a horrible bigot), only that their responses will not answer my questions satisfactorily. Here's the recent anecdote; my friend's cousin told him that the lesbian community she was part of had arguments about whether bisexuals should be part of the community. She was on the side of being less inclusive because, "well, they really aren't gay", she told him. Ironically, my friend related, she is now in a relationship with a man, and pretty much left the whole LGBT thing behind. So she is now straight. Or maybe bi? Jury's out....
