These
‘bathroom bills’ in states like South Dakota show that the LGBT political
agenda ultimately degrades human rights, suppresses scientific truths, and ends
government by consent.
LGBT activists are terrified that
South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard will follow his legislature’s lead in
refusing to succumb to the high-pressure conformity tactics they’ve used to cow
many other politicians. If Daugaard signs House Bill 1008, his state will be
the first to secure men, women, and young children’s rights to use locker rooms
and bathrooms free from the eyes and presence of people who are biologically of
the opposite sex.
So LGBT groups are spewing forth
even more of their usual overhyped invective. The laughably named Human Rights
Campaign has been sending forth feverish press releases imperiously demanding
that men be allowed to shower in the same area as little girls, lest children be endangered. Yes,
really: “These appalling proposals [to
keep men out of little girls’ showers and bathrooms] would compromise the
safety and well-being of the young people we all have the duty and obligation
to support and protect.” A little more self-awareness, please.
More likely HRC’s urgent tone
reflects the fact that many state lawmakers have this year introduced bills
intended to protect women and children from finding themselves undressed next
to a person of the opposite sex, with no recourse. More than two-dozen of these bills have surfaced in the past six months in
states including Colorado, Florida, Indiana,
Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, Texas, and Wisconsin. The spike in such
bills is a direct response to the Obama administration last year forcing public
schools in Illinois and Virginia to put boys in girls’ dressing, bathroom, and
shower facilities, or lose federal K-12 funds. The administration will soon
release a “hit list” of religious colleges that
similarly protect sexual privacy.
Transgender: A Bridge Too Far
Many lawmakers find forcing little
girls to undress next to men and boys too intolerant for even their heavily
conditioned tastes, as this
report from a debate in Indiana shows:
“The ‘T’ (in LGBT) is a stumbling block at the moment,” [Senate President
David] Long said…Democrats refused to support a proposal that did not include
civil rights protections for transgender Hoosiers. But Republicans refused to
support a proposal that included them.” LGBT activists’ refusal to compromise
in red-state Indiana on forcibly injecting transgender men into women and
children’s bathrooms this month tanked a broader special-rights bill for a
stack of their preferred sexual minorities.
‘The “T” (in LGBT) is a stumbling
block at the moment,’ [Senate President David] Long said.’
These lawmakers’ common-sense stance
was totally non-controversial about a year ago. Now all of a sudden schools
that have boys’ and girls’ bathrooms are being propagandized as “extremist.”
Why the rush? Because this logical extension of the LGBT agenda is so obviously
anti-reality that to succeed they must push it through, fast and furiously. In
this case, the method is to smear the legislators and the vast majority of
South Dakotans they represent, claiming they are “attacking transgender
children.”
Nothing is further from the truth.
South Dakotan legislators and their compatriots across the country are standing
up, both to protect the vulnerable women and children of America who comprise a
majority of the population and to protect rights for everyone that are far more important than forcibly
rearranging private spaces to accommodate feelings that are probably best
resolved through psychotherapy, not enabling self- and other-abuse.
Here’s how these “bathroom bills”
show that the LGBT political agenda ultimately degrades human rights,
suppresses scientific truths, and ends government by consent.
The Fundamental Rights to Free
Speech and Association
If the LGBT lobby had an accurate
vision statement, it would probably read something like this: “No one shall
speak freely to another human being.” If that sounds a bit odd to you, then
consider how ferociously the LGBT lobby has been fighting free expression.
It has become quickly clear that the
LGBT lobby was merely using Americans’ love of freedom against us. On the heels of the Supreme Court Obergefell decision that forced
states to legally sanction same-sex marriage, we have seen a flurry of
censorship laws disguised as sexual orientation and gender identity
non-discrimination (SOGI) laws. They’re the sort of laws that can result in a $250,000
fine in New York if you “misgender” a transgender
person. They can also shut down your business and bank accounts if you politely
recuse yourself from
applying your artistic talents—whether
in flower arranging, cake designing, or photography—to celebrating a same-sex
wedding.
The vitriolic reaction of the LGBT
lobby to honesty from Americans about their consciences, religious beliefs,
scientific knowledge, and political stances shows that their agenda boils down
to shutting down free speech. This sounds counter-intuitive. After all, the
media and Hollywood conditioned us in pre-Obergefell days to see gay rights and transgenderism as an expansion of free expression,
certainly not its death knell. LGBT agitation and propaganda trained us to see
it all as a matter of simply allowing people to be their authentic selves. Not
as a tool to enforce conformity of thought on all of us, thereby erasing authenticity.
But it has become quickly clear that
the LGBT lobby was merely using Americans’ love of freedom against us. They
were packaging speech bans and economic conscription inside the stars and
stripes. Their favored laws prioritize the ability of a tiny minority to compel
everyone else to affirm their desires over everyone’s ability to discuss the issue honestly. Remember:
transgender folks comprise
0.03 percent of the U.S. population,
while children and adult women comprise some 62 percent.
We all know that disagreeing with
someone does not mean hating them. It means that an issue is open for
discussion. When put that way, most Americans
will disagree. So they have to be barred from discussion with smears of
“bigotry” and “hate.” But we all know that disagreeing with someone does not
mean hating them. It means that an issue is open for discussion, that’s all. If
it cannot be open for discussion, we have now entered a totalitarian state in
which people’s private thoughts and actions are now grounds for political
control.
The horrors repression at this level
sparks are precisely why the rights to free speech and association are
enshrined in our Constitution, while rights to others’ good opinion and
cooperation are not. Free speech is more important than protecting feelings,
because without the former a free society cannot exist.
Children’s Right to Be Secure from
Exploitation
HRC press
releases rather absurdly insist that bills
like those in South Dakota are “vile” and “serve[] no other purpose than to
directly attack transgender children and could have catastrophic consequences.”
LGBT advocates have shown themselves
especially callous about the rights of women and children to feel secure, even
as they cynically wield the tiny population of so-called transgender children.
Wrong. State and national
constitutions already protect these rights, and Americans have responded to the
demands of transgendered children’s handlers by bending over backward to
accommodate them as far as possible without also violating the privacy and
speech rights of their fellow citizens. We have schools in numerous states
granting private bathroom and showering facilities to transgender children (and
adults), accommodating their requests to play on sports teams of the opposite
sex, and shushing up all the other children to protect one child’s feelings.
If LGBT advocates were really
concerned about “singling [transgender children] out from their peers,” as HRC
insisted the South Dakota bill does, they would not push these children into
pre-puberty cross-sex hormones and demand that parents encourage them to dress
and act abnormally. They would not call
for and get the heads of prominent and respected doctors who merely note that research shows the best care for
transgender children does not push them into opposite-sex behaviors and
chemicals.
LGBT advocates have shown themselves
especially callous about the rights of women and children to feel secure, even
as they cynically wield the tiny population of so-called transgender children
as sympathetic excuses to enact their anti-science, anti-speech, and
anti-empathy agenda. It can be possible for individual schools and public
places to protect both gender-confused individuals and the rest of society,
typically by granting both private places to conduct their private business.
They don’t want good-faith
compromises. They want dominance.
But that’s not good enough for LGBT
advocates, because they don’t want good-faith compromises. They want dominance.
They benefit from not only expanding the number of gender-confused children so
they can multiply their legal beachheads, but also from instantly politicizing
each child’s case to prevent families from privately dealing with these
conflicts in a manner that may provide wholeness by coming to peace with the
biological sex of the child in question, as the vast majority of successful
transgender-child cases do. In other words, LGBT advocates (whose agenda and
tactics many homosexual and transgender people do not support) score political
points by exploiting and damaging not only non-transgender children but also
the very children they pretend to champion.
The Right to Act with Authenticity
and Integrity
South
Dakota has another bill, House Bill 1107,
that is aptly titled “An Act to Ensure Government Nondiscrimination in Matters
of Religious Beliefs and Moral Convictions.” In other words, if you have
serious beliefs about sex, marriage, and children, you needn’t be forced to
perform acts that violate your conscience or totally gag yourself in fear of being
fired. South Dakota lawmakers are issuing a
friendly reminder that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of belief and
freedom of speech for everybody.
You can hold ideas about marriage
that nearly all of the world’s major religions teach and that 99 percent of the
world’s population accepted until approximately 18 months ago when—voila!—the
media declared that the masses have changed their collective mind. Or you can
hold to the anti-science LGBT diktat that obliterates the meaning of male or
female for everybody on the planet (because it insists everybody’s sex is
arbitrarily “assigned
at birth”). Both perspectives would be
protected.
That’s called freedom of conscience.
Protecting it allows people to publicly act the same as they privately think.
That’s called integrity, and authenticity. The LGBT agenda instead pressures
people to act like hypocrites because they fear losing social status. South
Dakota lawmakers are issuing a friendly reminder that the First Amendment
guarantees freedom of belief and freedom of speech for everybody, not just LGBT folks and their allies.
The Transgender Agenda Is
Anti-Science
The heart of South Dakota’s HB 1107
states the following: the state
may not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially,
on the basis that the person believes, speaks, or acts in accordance with a
sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that; Marriage is or should
only be recognized as the union of one man and one woman; Sexual relations are
properly reserved to marriage; or
The terms
male or man and female or woman refer to distinct and immutable biological
sexes that are determined by anatomy and genetics by the time of birth. The HRC seeks to make expressing all of the above beliefs
illegal. Here’s the kicker: that ultimately includes any statement in which you
would recognize the biological reality of your own body.
The LGBT agenda is nothing less than
a war on reality. Essentially, it requires that everybody get with a legal
package deal that insists human beings are neither male nor female. The
transgender piece of it absolutely requires this. Remember, it’s based on the
premise that your “gender” (which is a linguistic, not scientific, term) is
arbitrarily “assigned at birth,” never a fact of physical reality, such as the
basic truth that all human beings, except the tiny percentage with genetic anomalies, have either XX or XY chromosomes
imprinted on every single cell of
their bodies. Gender is not assigned at birth,
because a person’s sex is permanent.
This is biology 101 that every
school worth the name teaches at least in high school. And it means that gender is not assigned at birth, because a
person’s sex is permanent. It’s inherent to each individual human from
the first second that sperm and egg fuse. No amount of social shaming can
change this basic fact of life. Scholar
Daniel Moody has dissected this fallacy of gender theory in an insightful blog
post entitled “The Flesh Made Word.”
There is no logic to implementing
the transgender agenda, because it inherently requires irrationally rejecting
the simple, biological reality that men and women’s bodies are quite different,
and that nothing can make a genetically normal person transmogrify either into
the other sex or into the very small number of people whose bodies, due to
genetic defects, include
aspects of both sexes.
A War On Government by Consent
The headline of a HRC press release
reads: “South Dakota on the Verge of Becoming First State in Nation to Pass Law
Attacking Trans Children.” The quote from the HRC president reads: “This
legislation is disturbing, shocking, and outrageous. It serves no other purpose
than to directly attack transgender children and could have catastrophic
consequences. The Senate must stop this vile legislation dead in its tracks.”
These are the smears of political
correctness, which are intended to modify your language, behavior, and
thoughts. Disturbing. Shocking. Outrageous.
Vile. Really? These are the smears of political correctness, which are intended
to modify your language, behavior, and thoughts. This is exactly how gas
lighters operate on their victims. Without suppressing dissent, the entire
transgender project would die in its tracks, just like any other cult project.
The LGBT lobby knows this.
Instead, it can only operate within
a Stalinist-style framework. It’s totally about agitprop. Marshall Kirk and
Hunter Madsen laid out the whole strategy for the LGBT agenda in their 1989
book “After the Ball.” They prescribed a hardcore propaganda and marketing
campaign that utilized depth psychology. It’s classic thought reform, which can
be applied to get people to believe anything, no matter how implausible.
Their prescription was to first
de-sensitize the public. Then to “jam” or suppress every word of dissent.
Finally, everyone must convert. This cultivates a conditioned population. Once
we are conditioned in this manner, we end up accepting agendas and programs
that we’d at least question if our society respected clear and free thinking.
Instead, people either self-censor or conform to the party line out of hope for
social acceptance.
Representative government requires
citizens to be able to openly discuss social questions among themselves. That’s how it works in places like
North Korea, anyway. We’re getting there, thanks to purveyors of censorship
under the guise of “non-discrimination.” It’s entirely opposite to how
American-style government is supposed to work.
Representative government requires
the citizens, who are themselves the source of our government’s authority, to be
able to openly discuss social questions among themselves and consequently
direct their representatives.
If we are afraid or taught not to
speak, representative government cannot happen. Tiny factions like the LGBT
lobby wield power over an unwilling populace, which breeds resentment against
government for not aligning with our priorities. Political correctness
therefore eviscerates government by consent; under it, government operates
based on brute force, which escalates public disapproval in a constant cycle
until the social repression is broken—sometimes with (God forbid) violence.
What Happens Next? The great irony of the gay rights
agenda is that, ultimately, it’s not about gay rights or transgender rights.
They always follow censorship with further centralized power in the state. This stunts our growth because it
causes people to become more polarized and fearful about sharing perspectives.
Using law to suppress free speech in
the name of equality is characteristic of the urge to use centralized state
power to promote unique and, frankly, warped agendas. This sort of equality
requires having resentments to cultivate and victims to exploit—and state power
that “protects” said victims by suppressing all opposing points of view.
The risks inherent in this are deep
and frightening. State power feeds on itself. Lenin exploited workers and Mao
exploited the peasants, all in the guise of being their “vanguard” and giving
them equality. Anyone at the HRC who truly loves freedom will come to rue the
day it yielded to the urge to use state power to suppress free expression in
the name of equality for gays and transgenders.
This latest attack against the First
Amendment is unquestionably another act of war against freedom of conscience
and expression. That makes it a campaign against human rights. By killing
freedom of religion and speech, it also kills freedom of association. It stunts
our growth because it causes people to become more polarized and fearful about
sharing perspectives. That’s perfect for a centralized surveillance state. But
it’s tragic for true human friendship and love.
Comments
Georgia’s
LGBT Bathroom Bill is GA HR 849. Call
your State Rep and Senator and stop it.
Norb
Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
1 comment:
The Morabito and Pullmann article on transgender is scientifically flawed.
http://www.gendercare.com/English/italianopaper8.html
Post a Comment