Transgender

College Kids Speak With a 6’5″ Chinese Woman

Published by Papa Giorgio

FPIW visited the campus of the University of Washington to see if students would affirm or reject Joseph Backholm’s new chosen identity: a 6’5″ Chinese woman.

I think the really important part is at the end when it is pointed out that how are these people going to make the real [tough] decisions in life than truly matter if they cannot deal with simple realities. I can see this thinking with How Obama deals with foreign affairs. This brings to mind as well the recently “famous” dragon-lady, which is a man mutilating his body to become a female… wait for it… dragon. I have more on this in my Transspecies post, but Gay Patriot ends his post on the matter with this:

  • So, does this mean that businesses will be required to provide this creature with a sunny rock to warm itself in the afternoon sun on? Will states that exempt businesses from having to cater to this be subject to boycotts in services of the LGBQTAR (As in ‘Reptilian’) coalition of the perpetually aggrieved?

Earlier I highlighted a video where “College Kids Speak With a 6’5″ Chinese Woman,” but there are other videos in line with this thinking from The Family Policy Institute of Washington.

We took to the streets of Seattle to see if people actually oppose all discrimination, or if they just oppose *some* discrimination.

The Family Policy Institute of Washington asks Seattle residents if there are any limits to the way someone can self-identify.

Do college kids think there’s a difference between men and women? FPIW visited Seattle University to find out.

Two Recent Examples of Gay Fascism by Government

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here is a story sure to make parents… most parents… mad. But mad enough to stop voting Democrat? I doubt it. You are digging your own graves. Here is the continuation of the above video via The Blaze (this story is related to intersectional feminism):

The mother of a Tampa, Florida, seventh-grader is speaking out after finding an assignment given to her 12-year-old daughter and other students in Spanish class at Monroe Junior High.

The form asked, “How much privilege do you have? Circle the boxes that apply to you.”

The categories on the form listed “Race,” “Skin Color,” “Religion,” “Sex,” “Gender,” “Sexual Orientation” and “Disability.”

The options under gender included, “cisgendered,” “transgendered” or “genderqueer.”

Moonbattery has this story of a 4-year old being kicked out of preschool because the parents were questioning the pro-gay/transgender materials:

To construct utopia, thought criminals associated with resistance to the LGBT agenda must be dealt with severely — even if they are only 4 years old:

A Colorado preschool has booted a 4-year-old after her parent’s questioned the administration about its curriculum promoting homosexuality and transgenderism.

R.B Sinclair told the Denver Post that she wanted her daughter excused from classroom discussions on sex and gender, because she sees it as sex education.

She feels her daughter is too young for the discussions offered at the Montview Community Preschool & Kindergarten in Denver. …

Sinclair says one day her daughter came home worried that her dad might no longer like girls.

She met with the principal over concerns about the books being read in class, including ones that told the stories about same-sex couples and worms unsure about their gender.

School officials from the privately run parent cooperative explained the stories were part of the school’s anti-bias curriculum, and because the discussions are sprinkled through the day’s activities, they told her that opting out was not possible.

No doubt. Even math class probably features full-throated endorsements of the homosexual lifestyle — always assuming that schools still have math class….

Democrat Gay Fascism

The Resurgent ends their excellent article on this thus:

And for all those parents whose children are in the Colorado public schools, you have been warned. Your teachers have been trained to advance the same agenda in a classroom near you.

I suppose that is not surprising since we know have satanist coloring books available for students in Colorado, thanks to spineless school officials who don’t know the difference between the most influential book in the history of the world and a coloring book that denies the existence of God while encouraging kids to color inside the lines.

Where, oh where, have all the adults gone?

“Trans” Analogies

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is a portion of an excellent article that should be read in total, but I am clipping the portion that includes analogies… I will interrupt them with links to ACTUAL examples of what you think are hypothetical:

(ThePublicDiscourse) – By now we are all undoubtedly familiar with the tragic suicide of Joshua Alcorn, the transgender teenage boy who, in late December, walked onto a freeway with the intention of ending his life. In an apparent suicide note, Joshua cites a host of reasons for why he was led to end his life, most prominent of which were his parents’ attempts to discourage his identifying as a girl and his being sent to therapists in an attempt to relieve these feelings. All of the problems that ultimately culminated in his suicide, writes Joshua, stem from the fact that, from the time he was a small child, he felt like a “girl trapped in a boy’s body.”

No sooner had Joshua’s heart stopped beating than the story of his suicide was seized by LGBT activists and pruned to advance a familiar narrative of a sexual minority fighting cultural oppression. Joshua’s parents immediately began to be chided as “repressive” and “bigoted” and even began to receive various threats from LGBT internet crusader-activists.

Transgenderism and Gender Identity

I have not referred to Joshua by using female pronouns or by using his self-invented female name of “Leelah.” The reason I am not doing this is simple: Joshua was not a girl—he was a boy—and to address males with female pronouns or females with male pronouns is to contribute to our culture’s confusion about sexuality and the nature of the human person, which is literally leaving casualties in its wake. No amount of surgical mutilation of body parts, effeminate behaviors, or artificial female appearances can make a man a woman.

LGBT activists will respond in various ways to this. They might first respond by saying: “Okay, true enough: Joshua was biologically a male. But you have misunderstood our claim: we contend that his sex was male, yes, but his gender was female because he ‘identified’ as female.” The idea here is that people have a sex, which is either female or male and which one cannot choose. In addition to this, however, there is “gender,” or what sex one is more comfortable “identifying” as. The response to this is simple: Why think that what one “identifies as” is significant at all, especially to the extent that others should actively recognize or cater to such an identity, and especially when the identity one adopts is contrary to reality?

Here we enter into some “analogies,” what is in actuality, realities:

Consider the following analogies. Suppose that a Caucasian man from Finland—call him Gunther—suddenly decided that he identifies as being of Sub-Saharan African descent. Suppose further that, in light of this, Gunther undergoes unusual procedures to have his skin darkened and his skull’s bone structure re-shaped so as to resemble that of individuals of Sub-Saharan descent. Would we think that such a person has suddenly become of Sub-Saharan descent through such procedures? Of course not, and his identifying as such does nothing to change this. His appearance as someone of Sub-Saharan descent might be very convincing. But, again, this doesn’t change the fact that he is not of Sub-Saharan descent.

Recently we had an example of Rachel Dolezal, claiming to be black. Here is Rachel in an interview confirming her “blackness,” even though she was born white:

Following are some Tweets from when the story broke:

Take note that there is another example of this “transracialism” in Shaun King, co-founder of the Black Lives Matter, who claimed to be black but was in fact, white.

Another example of this analogy are people who believe themselves to be animals. This is called “transspecism.” Here is an example of this lunacy:

Okay, moving on… here is the articles second analogy:

Similarly, suppose that a seventy-year-old man—call him Bob—comes to identify as a sixteen-year-old. Wouldn’t we think it absurd if people considered it “rude” or “bigoted” to tell the man: “You are not sixteen years old. Your identifying as such doesn’t change this fact, and we will not indulge you in your strange delusions by not calling attention to your old age and by pretending that you really are sixteen years old”?

Here again we have real life examples of what I termed “transageism.” Here is an example of this lunacy:

Need I say more???? Continuing with my excerpt of the article:

The cases of Gunther and Bob and the situations of individuals who believe themselves to be transgender are perfectly analogous. In the case of the transgender individual, he identifies as something he is not—someone of the opposite sex—and seeks to undergo harmful surgeries and hormonal treatments in order to have his physical state match his identity of himself as someone of the opposite sex.

Our mental faculties, like our physical ones, are ordered toward various ends. Among these ends is the attainment of truth. To this extent, it is perfective of our mental faculties to recognize how we truly are (and thus apprehend a truth). It is for this reason that we can make sense of mental disorders such as anorexia nervosa as disorders: they involve persons’ having persistent, false beliefs about their identity or how they really are. In the case of the anorexic, someone who is dangerously underweight believes falsely (but tenaciously) that he is really overweight. It would be a proper procedure of medicine, then, for a therapist to help an anorexic individual to do away with his anorexia, restoring the individual’s mental faculties to their properly functioning state….

(read it all)

Leftist Ideals Exemplified ~ Cuba vs. North Carolina

Published by Papa Giorgio

Listen to “Ep. 96 – Worst. President. Ever.” on Spreaker.

Description of the above audio: Worst President Ever

Andrew dissects Obama’s insane interaction with Raoul Castro;

and discusses how a culture of narcissism weakens capitalism…

  • New York’s Democratic governor banned state travel to North Carolina this week, citing its residents’ supposed lack of equal protection under the law, weeks after he announced efforts to facilitate travel from New York to Cuba, which is ruled by a repressive communist dictatorship that routinely imprisons political dissenters. (Washington Free Beacon)

GAY PATRIOT opines well:

The left-wing Governor of New York is banning state employees from traveling to North Carolina, on the basis that barring biological males from using the women’s bathroom is the worst violation of Human Rights in the History of Everything.

On the other hand, traveling to the Communist Island Gulag of Cuba is something he supports and encourages.

[….]

I guess the difference is that northeastern leftists prefer Communists to Southern Christians; [you see,] they understand Communists.

ALLEN WEST links to this article at MENTAL RECESSION:

…Symbolism aside, this is the same Democrat Governor who recently traveled to Cuba to establish trade relations with a country notorious for their poor civil and human rights record.

Cuba has no anti-discrimination laws currently regarding the provisions of goods and services. None. They have no anti-discrimination laws regarding hate speech against particular groups. But they do have a constitutional ban against same-sex marriage.

Yet Cuomo seems perfectly fine with that.

North Carolina’s alleged intolerance – Bad. Cuba’s proven intolerance – *shrug*…

New Information on the Planned Parenthood Shooter

Published by Papa Giorgio

“Planned Parenthood officials have confirmed none of the people killed in the shooting or 9 victims who were injured were Planned Parenthood abortion clinic staff or patients and authorities have released no motive for the shooter as to whether or not he actually targeted Planned Parenthood.” (LifeNews)

Maybe society will deal with the instability of people who suffer GID (gender identity disorder)? I pray for the families involved of the death of their loved ones.

Add this guy to all these “right wing extremists“!

  • Elliot Rodger (“UCSB” shooter): Fan of the left-wing political talk show, The Young Turks.
  • James von Brunn (Holocaust Memorial Museum shooter): von Brunn hated Rupert Murdoch, Fox News, George W. Bush and John McCain.
  • Nidal Hasan (Ft Hood Shooter): Registered Democrat and Muslim.
  • Aaron Alexis (Navy Yard shooter): black liberal/Obama voter.
  • Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech shooter): Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat.
  • James Holmes: the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occupy guy, progressive liberal, hated Christians.
  • Amy Bishop: the rabid leftist, killed her colleagues in Alabama, Obama supporter.
  • Andrew J. Stack (IRS bomber, flew plane into IRS building in Texas): Leftist Democrat, hated Bush and capitalism.
  • James J. Lee (who was the “green activist”): leftist took hostages at Discovery Channel – progressive liberal Democrat.
  • John Patrick Bedell: (Pentagon Shooter) registered Democrat, talked about economic justice.
  • Nkosi Thandiwe (Shooting spree targeting white ppl): Accepted “white priveledge.”
  • Floyd Corkins (LGBT Chic-Fil-A shooter): hated conservative and Christians.
  • Karl Pierson (school shooter): loved communism, self-avowed Keynesian, hated Adam Smith and supported gun-control.

But — this site (beyond the compassion felt for lost loved ones) is also a site to defend against the craziness out there. I have seen stupid posts by people who hate Planned Parenthood saying they do not care if a worker at PP lost their lives, to the media saying this is a right-wing motivated attack. All of it dumb. But when the media (not bloggers or tweeters ~ see one example below) hops in on this, then I post rebuttals like this one below.

Robert Lewis Dear, Jr.

Robert Lewis Dear, Jr. from Hartsel, Colorado is registered to vote in Park County, Colorado as a woman. And his party affiliation is UAF!

  • UPDATED INFO: UAF may stand for “Unaffiliated,” thanks to Trevor Stewart for the kind correction!

…Robert Lewis Dear, the suspect in the shooting at Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs, appears to have posted religious rants and solicitations for women on the website Cannabis.com, and also had a dating ad at SexyAds.com.

Dear’s posts on the Cannabis.com message board were first uncovered by the New York Times. A dating profile on SexyAds.com has the same username Dear used when posting online…. 

The pictured voting gender below is from IJReview:

The “white Christian terrorist” refrain has been a constant drumbeat among the activists who smell blood in a terrible story that seems to confirm every outlandish bias they hold about pro-life Americans.

[….]

In addition, there is the question of why the supposed anti-abortion activist John Lewis Dear is identifying as a “female.” Via the Gateway Pundit:

  • Robert Lewis Dear, Jr. from Hartsel, Colorado is registered to vote in Park County, Colorado as a woman.

The Colorado Springs authorities confirmed the Hartsel, Colorado address. Furthermore, Dear is not a registered Republican:

robert-dear-woman

Example from Jezebel… this site blames in part the undercover videos released. Even claiming these are edited — even though they have been released in full [without any edits] for the skeptics to watch.

The shooting comes as Planned Parenthood faces national criticism and statewide investigations over a series of deceptively edited videos released by the Center for Medical Progress. Those videos have spurred even more protests of the organization and, in the last few months, a number of clinics have been targeted by arsonists; a truly stark reminder of the high price of “protecting women.”

Of course there many “false flag” (not in the conspiratorial sense that is used) arson, poop swastikas, and graffiti against lesbians ~ by those who then claim “hate” has been used against them or their community.

One of the commentators on Jezebel’s site said the following:

Thanks for the simple act of listing this under terrorism. The gymnastics people are displaying to avoid that word/ definition of this act staggers my mind.

This man is an actor in an invisible war. The resistance to calling him what he is, a terrorist, is the embodiment of white, christian ideological supremacy. The constant refrain of ‘we need to know more!’ but what more could we possibly need to know?

Dumb!

Feds Order High School To Allow Boys To Use Girls’ Shower

Published by Papa Giorgio

…and yet they still vote Democrat. Dennis Prager starts the talk by comparing police officers voting Democrat for their pensions only. Then he reads from a NYTs story that says the “Illinois [school] District Violated [a] Transgender Student’s Rights.” Actually, the school bent over backwards to accommodate the student. And why do parents continue to vote Democrat? Prager finishes the segment with an answer.

Some more on this topic via The Kelly File:

See more at: HotAir; The Blaze; Breitbart; The Daily Caller.; IJReview;…

Dr. Paul McHugh Comments On Transgenderism & Psychology

Published by Papa Giorgio

A great article by the Witherspoon Institute via Paul McHugh, MD, who is University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital:

For forty years as the University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School—twenty-six of which were also spent as Psychiatrist in Chief of Johns Hopkins Hospital—I’ve been studying people who claim to be transgender. Over that time, I’ve watched the phenomenon change and expand in remarkable ways.

A rare issue of a few men—both homosexual and heterosexual men, including some who sought sex-change surgery because they were erotically aroused by the thought or image of themselves as women—has spread to include women as well as men. Even young boys and girls have begun to present themselves as of the opposite sex. Over the last ten or fifteen years, this phenomenon has increased in prevalence, seemingly exponentially. Now, almost everyone has heard of or met such a person.

Publicity, especially from early examples such as “Christine” Jorgenson, “Jan” Morris, and “Renee” Richards, has promoted the idea that one’s biological sex is a choice, leading to widespread cultural acceptance of the concept. And, that idea, quickly accepted in the 1980s, has since run through the American public like a revelation or “meme” affecting much of our thought about sex.

The champions of this meme, encouraged by their alliance with the broader LGBT movement, claim that whether you are a man or a woman, a boy or a girl, is more of a disposition or feeling about yourself than a fact of nature. And, much like any other feeling, it can change at any time, and for all sorts of reasons. Therefore, no one could predict who would swap this fact of their makeup, nor could one justifiably criticize such a decision.

At Johns Hopkins, after pioneering sex-change surgery, we demonstrated that the practice brought no important benefits. As a result, we stopped offering that form of treatment in the 1970s. Our efforts, though, had little influence on the emergence of this new idea about sex, or upon the expansion of the number of “transgendered” among young and old.

[….]

But the meme—that your sex is a feeling, not a biological fact, and can change at any time—marches on through our society. In a way, it’s reminiscent of the Hans Christian Andersen tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes. In that tale, the Emperor, believing that he wore an outfit of special beauty imperceptible to the rude or uncultured, paraded naked through his town to the huzzahs of courtiers and citizens anxious about their reputations. Many onlookers to the contemporary transgender parade, knowing that a disfavored opinion is worse than bad taste today, similarly fear to identify it as a misapprehension.

I am ever trying to be the boy among the bystanders who points to what’s real. I do so not only because truth matters, but also because overlooked amid the hoopla—enhanced now by Bruce Jenner’s celebrity and Annie Leibovitz’s photography—stand many victims. Think, for example, of the parents whom no one—not doctors, schools, nor even churches—will help to rescue their children from these strange notions of being transgendered and the problematic lives these notions herald. These youngsters now far outnumber the Bruce Jenner type of transgender. Although they may be encouraged by his public reception, these children generally come to their ideas about their sex not through erotic interests but through a variety of youthful psychosocial conflicts and concerns.

First, though, let us address the basic assumption of the contemporary parade: the idea that exchange of one’s sex is possible. It, like the storied Emperor, is starkly, nakedly false. Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men. All (including Bruce Jenner) become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they “identify.” In that lies their problematic future.

When “the tumult and shouting dies,” it proves not easy nor wise to live in a counterfeit sexual garb. The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people—extending over thirty years and conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered—documents their lifelong mental unrest. Ten to fifteen years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to twenty times that of comparable peers.

…read it all…

The New Normal… Censorship (Plus: Family Guy) [UPDATED]

Published by Papa Giorgio

Censorship is the new norm, and this is with thanks to the left. See for instance Jerry Seinfeld talking about censorship in comedy.

To even write that Bruce Jenner is a man and not a woman is hate speech.

Pittsburgh ‘News’ Room, Lobbyists Demand Columnist Firing for ‘Jenner Still a Mister’ Piece

Stating an anti-transgender opinion is close to forbidden in today’s “news” pages and “news” rooms, especially after the Bruce Jenner fawning frenzy. Exhibit A? Pittsburgh Post-Gazette columnist and associate editor Jennifer Graham (no relation to me) wrote a column truthfully titled “Caitlyn Jenner is still a mister.” 

JimRomenesko.com notes Jay Brown of the so-called Human Rights Campaign demanded in a letter that she be fired for “hate speech, plain and simple”: 

I am writing to you regarding a despicably offensive and inaccurate column by your employee, Jennifer Graham. Simply put, after submitting a piece so utterly lacking truth or decency, she should be relieved of her role as a columnist….

There is still time to make this right, but the solution involves taking action now. Ms. Graham has no business serving as a columnist at a publication with a reputation as sterling like yours. Instead, lift up a  Pittsburgh voice that has something meaningful to say on the issues of the day.”   

…read more…

I posted the above on my FaceBook and got the following response from a gal I adore… but who is just mimicking pop-culture:

How is it anyone’s business other than Caitlin Jenner’s to decide what/who to be called?

Here is my response to the above… and it is in the hopes to create sound thinking/reflection on how she, we, encapsulate thoughts… and thus meaning. (I AM HERE including slightly more information than in the original response):

You are making my point. So let’s change this around: “How is it anyone’s business other than ‘the Pittsburgh columnist to comment on Jenner’.”

You see, when a baker decides to not make a cake for a specific event, the power of the state gets involved. Likewise, we will soon see the state get involved in issues like these… like pastors being fined and even threatened with jail for preaching from Romans.

Also, there is a growing movement of people who had operations to become a woman speaking out against fellow “prospective” transgenders from getting the operation and deluding oneself into thinking they are the opposite sex (See my “Transgender Page” for some examples)

Again, using your premise said another way:

Self Refuting (Alvin Plantinga’s “Tar Baby”)

Again, relativism claims that all so-called truth is relative, that there really is no absolute truth, but that different things (whatever they may be) may be true for me but not for you.  This is at times called perspectivalism.

  • Statement: There is no such thing as absolute truth; [or alternatively, there are many truths.]

Is this philosophy of relativism making the statement that this is the ultimate, absolute truth about truth?  In that case, it actually asserts what it denies, and so is self-deleting, simply logically incoherent as a philosophical position[1] and in violation of the Law of non-contradiction (LNC), one of the most important laws of logical thought.[2]  I will show some common – everyday – rebukes that show how people contradict themselves, thus undermining what in fact they are trying to assert.

Some Examples ~ You Shouldn’t Force Your Morality On Me![3]

  • First Person: “You shouldn’t force your morality on me.”
  • Second Person: “Why not?”
  • First Person: “Because I don’t believe in forcing morality.”
  • Second Person: “If you don’t believe in it, then by all means, don’t do it. Especially don’t force that moral view of yours on me.”
  • First Person: “You shouldn’t push your morality on me.”
  • Second Person: “I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that statement. Do you mean I have no right to an opinion?”
  • First Person: “You have a right to you’re opinion, but you have no right to force it on anyone.”
  • Second Person: “Is that your opinion?”
  • First Person: “Yes.”
  • Second Person: “Then why are you forcing it on me?”
  • First Person: “But your saying your view is right.”
  • Second Person: “Am I wrong?”
  • First Person: “Yes.”
  • Second Person: “Then your saying only your view is right, which is the very thing you objected to me saying.”
  • First Person: “You shouldn’t push your morality on me.”
  • Second Person: “Correct me if I’m misunderstanding you here, but it sounds to me like your telling me I’m wrong.”
  • First Person: “You are.”
  • Second Person: “Well, you seem to be saying my personal moral view shouldn’t apply to other people, but that sounds suspiciously like you are applying your moral view to me.  Why are you forcing your morality on me?”

Self-Defeating

  • “Most of the problems with our culture can be summed up in one phrase: ‘Who are you to say?’” ~ Dennis Prager

So lets unpack this phrase and see how it is self-refuting, or as Tom Morris[4] put it, self-deleting. When someone says, “Who are you to say?” answer with, “Who are you to say ‘Who are you to say’?”[5]

This person is challenging your right to correct another, yet she is correcting you.  Your response to her amounts to “Who are you to correct my correction, if correcting in itself is wrong?” or “If I don’t have the right to challenge your view, then why do you have the right to challenge mine?”  Her objection is self-refuting; you’re just pointing it out.

The “Who are you to say?” challenge fails on another account.  Taken at face value, the question challenges one’s authority to judge another’s conduct.  It says, in effect, “What authorizes you to make a rule for others?  Are you in charge?”  This challenge miscasts my position.  I don’t expect others to obey me simply because I say so.  I’m appealing to reason, not asserting my authority.  It’s one thing to force beliefs; it’s quite another to state those beliefs and make an appeal for them.

The “Who are you to say?” complaint is a cheap shot.  At best it’s self-defeating.  It’s an attempt to challenge the legitimacy of your moral judgments, but the statement itself implies a moral judgment.  At worst, it legitimizes anarchy!

[1] Tom Morris, Philosophy for Dummies (IDG Books; 1999), p. 46
[2] “…is considered the foundation of logical reasoning,” Manuel Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text with Readings (Wadsworth; 2001), p. 51.  “A theory in which this law fails…is an inconsistent theory”, edited by Ted Honderich, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, (Oxford Univ; 1995), p. 625.
[3] Francis Beckwith & Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Planted in Mid-Air (Baker Books; 1998), p. 144-146.
[4] Tom Morris, Philosophy for Dummies (IDG Books; 1999), p. 46
[5] Francis Beckwith & Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Planted in Mid-Air (Baker Books; 1998), p. 144-146.

(See more at my SCRIBD)

I then mentioned that the first part of this “two-part import” from my old blog to my new one may fit the applications as well:

Agree or Not?

This is a combination of two posts, the first was a question I posed to someone in a forum. Below you see what that question was and where I led that person. The second is a bit of political science. Both repeat some of the same idea, but both are different.

So let’s highlight the first question by a court case that has, well, institutionalized the “post-modern” society. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1996), the 9th District Appeals Court wrote:

“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”

In other words, whatever you believe is your origin, and thus your designating meaning on both your life and body is your business, no one else’s. If you believe that the child growing in you – no matter at what stage (Doe v. Bolton) – isn’t a child unless you designate it so. You alone can choose to or not choose to designate life to that “fetus”. It isn’t a “potential person” until you say it is first a person. Understand? That being clarified, do you agree with this general statement:

“If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own reality…”

Sounds really close to the 9th Courts majority view doesn’t it. The above is basically saying that your opinion is just as valid as another persons opinion because both are your’s and the other persons perspective on something is formed from influences from your culture and experiences. So someone from New Guiney may have a differing view or opinion on eating dogs than an American.

Let’s compare a portion from both statements:

  1. “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life…”
  2. “…the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own reality…”

Whether you’re an atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian or Muslim, it doesn’t matter. Your reality is just that… your reality, or opinion, or personal dogma. I want to now complete one of the quotes that I left somewhat edited, not only that, but I want to ask you if you still agree with it after you find out who wrote it.

Ready?

“Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition…. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity…. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.”

Mussolini, Diuturna pp. 374-77, quoted in A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist (Ignatius Press; 1999), by Peter Kreeft, p. 18.

Now the Choice Isn’t Just Male/Female ~ Welcome “Transpecies”

Published by Papa Giorgio

You can no-more change species than you can change gender/sex… sorry to break that to you.

This come via Moonbattery… rightly so:

Since political correctness trumps biological reality, men can now decide that they are really women, and women can decide that they are really men. So what is to stop people from deciding that they are really animals?…. Anyone surprised to see the Obama/Biden sticker in the window of Caleb the Wolf’s parents?

Frontpage Magazine has this article about the movement:

Insanity. It’s not just a mental illness. It’s also an identity. Men in dresses claim that gender is in the mind, not in the body. If you think you’re a woman, then you are a woman. What used to be a minor form of eccentric insanity has now become educational policy in schools.

But why stop at gender when you can also do species? There are people who believe that their true identity is that of an animal. And who is to say that species isn’t in the mind, just like gender is in the mind?

This isn’t just a thought-experiment or satire. It’s reality.

Species dysphoria is the equivalent of Gender dysphoria. Mentally ill persons with gender dysphoria are fashionably diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder. There is as of yet no Species Identity Disorder, but that is no doubt coming.

Like Trannies, Transpecies Americans create special pronouns for themselves and insist that refusing to pretend that they’re cats or wolves is a hate crime.

Like most newly minted civil rights groups, Trannies are intolerant of Transpecies Americans accusing them of only pretending to think that they’re cats and playing the old, “How dare you compare your pain to my pain and your imaginary identity to my imaginary identity” game.

Men who claim that they were really born women based on their personality insist that the idea of men who claim they were born cats is just nuts….

…read it all…

In The Liberal World — Men Fight Women (*Equity*)

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is with thanks to Moonbattery:

Current liberal dogma that gender is fluid and mutable rather than innate in every cell in our bodies has been very liberating for some. For example, it has freed Fallon Fox to become a highly effective MMA fighter. All he had to do was subject himself to grotesque sexual mutilation and then declare himself to be a woman:

Transgender mixed martial arts (MMA) competitor Fallon Fox is facing new criticisms after breaking the eye socket of his last opponent. …

Fox defeated Tamikka Brents by TKO at 2:17 of the first round of their match. In addition to the damaged orbital bone that required seven staples, Brents received a concussion. In a post-fight interview this week, she told Whoa TV that “I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life.”

“I’ve fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night.”

That’s because men are stronger than women, regardless of what ideology is in fashion.

Fox’s gender controversy is not new. In March 2013, after a 39-second knockout victory, it was revealed that Fox had not told the MMA community about his sex-change operation, which took place in 2006. That bout was the fifth straight first-round victory for the then-37-year old Fox, including his three amateur bouts, and his second victory as a professional fighter.

A video of the Brents fight taken by a ringside fan shows Fox throwing several powerful knees to the face and torso of Brents at the start of the match, who pulled guard to protect herself. Soon, Brents turned her back to avoid damage, where she took approximately 45 seconds of elbow and fist strikes – many blocked by her hands and arms – before the referee stopped the fight.

If you are twisted enough to feel like doing that to a woman, then maybe a sex change operation is the right move for you.

[….]

Hat tip: Liberty News.

…read it all…