Friday 15 December 2017

Postmodernism is over!

If the 'progressive left' keeps 'progressing', we can safely say that postmodernism is over.

Postmodernism is the view that there is no 'absolute truth': we can all decide what is true for each of us. (Now, of course, it had its internal logic problems, because if one person believed in 'killing infidels', a person of a differing viewpoint would not be happy to support them in their 'truth'.)

But let's suppose, for a moment, that the premise of postmodernism is true: that each person can have their own 'truth'.

Well, we've moved on now to what I've come to call sexualism. Sexualism is the view that your sexuality (or gender) is your true identity. It's the hobby horse of the 'progressive left', also known as SJWs, because they are trying to add a plethora of 'genders' somewhere in between the 'male' and 'female' categories.

Sexualism is not compatible with postmodernism.

The person who believes in more than two genders (or sexes, since there's no solid scientific support that the two are distinct) cannot accept a person who believes that there are only two. Their own intolerance leads them into hurling the insults of 'bigot' and 'extremist' (simply read the comments on my video).

Therefore, sexualism is certainly not compatible with postmodernism. It also presents a very dogmatic worldview based on pseudoscience and 'feelings' of people who are easily offended and think that a change in sexuality will make them a happier person. It is 'absolute truth' for them.

Wednesday 13 December 2017

Keep it quiet!!!!!

Surely it's all about equality?
Surely it's simply human nature?
Surely it's...

Isn't same-sex marriage part of a 'progressive' society?
A progression towards... where? Is it really a step towards utopia?

So when Bermuda returns to traditional marriage...
Read about it here.
And here.
And here.

Firstly, no major newspaper is reporting on it. Why? Because it obviously doesn't further the LGBT agenda... can't have that, now, can we?

Secondly, those who are reporting on it are filled with comments such as:
"This is a human rights issue. We are taking away marriage equality rights from the LGBTQ community."
"I don't like to accept that it is OK to treat our sisters and brothers differently, whether fair or unfair, to treat them differently under similar circumstances."
"The fact that no country in the world has ever done this should give us pause. We will look foolish and oppressive..."
(That's one comment from each of the articles above, respectively.)

Thirdly, no one seems to be talking about why they've decided to do it. It's all about the bashing of the traditional marriage view.

Aren't we meant to be the most educated people in history? So what can't we apply reason and understanding?
- The reason "no country in the world has ever done this" is because same-sex marriage is rather new. One country has to be the first, just like UK was first to try to leave the EU. It's a non-argument.
- Is same-sex marriage really equal with heterosexual marriage? Of course not. Heterosexual couples, if all parts are working correctly, can produce offspring naturally. Homosexual couples cannot. Is a child brought up with two parents of the same sex as equally balanced as one brought up by one male and one female parent? There's clearly a difference.

Alas, no. It's just another chance to try to bash people into submission by name-calling: you're "foolish and oppressive"! So childish. That's the real 'progressiveness' of society.



UPDATE:
Now, a few days later, some of the more major news organisations are covering the story:
The Guardian
BBC
New York Times

But the question still remains... since it was such big news to allow same-sex marriage, why didn't the big corporations jump at the opportunity to report on another story on the same issue?

The answer should be obvious: the corporations are in support of same-sex marriage and don't want to give the public the impression that there might be something wrong with that ideology.

Monday 11 December 2017

Brexit wreck

So apparently there has been a "breakthrough" with the Brexit negotiations.

The first step of negotiation is to know your position, specifically how strong it is. In the Western world, if you go into a shop which has marked prices (such as a supermarket) and you begin to haggle, you'll just get kicked out. This is because you don't have a strong position: the shop doesn't really need you. If you go to buy a car from a small business, then you can haggle, because your position is much stronger: they want to sell a car, and the profit they still receive is more important than the loss by a small reduction in price.

Politicians seem far too used to spending taxpayers' money with their enormous expenses, that they have no clue how to haggle. When it comes to Brexit, remember that the EU didn't want the UK to leave. Why? Because it sets a precedent: other countries may follow suit.

The breakup of the EU is a great step forward for countries to regain control of themselves, no longer being governed by a group of political elite from a conference room a long, long way away from the real situations. Of course, it would also prevent the EU from becoming a superpower, meaning there is no possibility for the EU leader to suddenly have control over many countries and very large land mass of the earth. In other words, the end of the EU is a step forward for democracy.

Now, the EU (the MEPs, to be specific) doesn't want that. Of course not. Why? Because their jobs only exist if there's an EU. These people (all politicians, remember) like having a huge expenses bill, and it's all paid for by money given to the EU by each individual country. They don't just get to spend their own taxpayers' money, they get to spend others' too! They get to travel all over the place, have a second house they can rent out because they hardly ever live there, have food provided at many functions (or eat out at expensive restaurants), stay in top quality hotels... essentially living a life of luxury, and when they retire, to have a huge amount of savings and investments because they've destroyed the government pension... and they don't want to give up that lifestyle!

Unfortunately, UK politicians are so blinded that they don't see that EU politicians are just the same as them, if not worse (because it's a larger scale). And that's the problem.

This "breakthrough" deal includes an EU "divorce bill" upwards of £35 billion.

If the UK parliament realised their strong position, they would know that they could just say, "We're leaving, that's that." Sure, there would be some repercussions... a trade deal might be lost, but the saving of so much money would be a great thing to help the UK economy to stay strong.

Or is it about people? It wouldn't be too difficult to put forward a plan to allow EU nationals who are already in the UK to remain (at least for a time, if not permanently), but to have stricter measures at the borders. After all, Trump managed to get a travel ban implemented rather quickly when he became president of the US. It wouldn't be a major hiccup.

But, at the end of the day, the "divorce bill" of such an amount is a complete joke. The EU has essentially managed to say, "You want to leave? We'll make you pay!" and the UK government have simply responded, "Okay."

What if we didn't pay? What would happen if we stopped the payments immediately?

Nothing.

Really? Why? Well, quite simply, what could the EU do? They only response would be to go to war over it. But in these modern times, who goes to war over money? It wouldn't seem justified. At any rate, if there was a war, the EU would need to spend a large chunk of that money to wage that war. Would they really want that? No, of course not.

And if a war were to be the response of the EU, it would be easy enough to call upon other countries who don't like the EU for help. The EU wouldn't stand a chance.

In conclusion, this "breakthrough Brexit deal" is a complete shambles, all due to self-centred politicians (many of whom didn't want to leave in the first place) who didn't realise the strength of the UK position. And with the UK suffering such a financial loss, they will be able to say to the country, "We told you we shouldn't have left."

Sunday 10 December 2017

Firefox also ignores preferences

I recently commented that Windows 10 updates makes changes to privacy settings without your permission.

Now, the latest Firefox update has changed it so that when I search in the address bar, it automatically uses the 'Bing' search engine... which I had previously deleted from my computer.

It's not too difficult to change back, but it shows how the big corporations will do whatever it takes to do what they want and meddle with your computer from afar.

"Your generation thinks you ARE black people!"

"A Millennial vs A Baby Boomer" - a must-watch!


Got questions with the title? Look here.
And here.
And here.
And here (gonna have trouble with that accent...).

Friday 8 December 2017

A world gone mad

I recently came across this article about a training event held for primary school teachers in Canada. Their 'inclusiveness training' is to bring awareness not just to 'LGBT' issues, but to the 'LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP' community.

Yes, it sounds (looks?) like something made up.

It supposedly stands for:
Lesbian
Gay
Genderqueer
Bisexual
Demisexual
Transgender
Transsexual
Twospirit
Intersex
Queer
Questioning
Asexual
Allies
Pansexual
Polyamorous

This, of course, presents a problem because those who 'identify' as 'cosmicgender' aren't considered...

Apparently, this was intended to be a little 'tongue-in-cheek' (see here), with the aim to highlight the importance of inclusivity in order to attract people to the event.

But there are real consequences. Just how many letters can be added to the group? This article identifies 63, this one 71. This article might seem fairly complete...

According to Snopes, a representative for the Durham chapter of the ETFO said:
"...keeping track of diverse LGBTQ identities can be overwhelming, especially as our students are continuously identifying new ones."

And that is exactly the problem. It will just keep on growing whenever someone feels like 'identifying' as 'something else'.

It should therefore be evident that the world has gone mad.

Thursday 7 December 2017

"White privilege" is the new god

Here's what humanity has done over the last few decades...

1. The principles of Western civilisation were based on the Bible. Westerners typically believed in God. Although they didn't fully understand God, there was an acceptance of the moral standards that came with Christianity as being beneficial for the human race.

2. As science progressed, theories developed of a world that may not have been influenced by God. Although there is not a complete explanation, a 'theory of everything' (as Stephen Hawking liked to put it), and no idea how matter could come into being of it's own accord, scientists and atheists have pushed forward this view.

3. Atheist philosophers no longer accepted "I don't know" as a rational response to some of the tough questions (despite scientists using the same response when asked similarly tough questions). For them, God had to be fully understandable by humans, and God's actions had to be assessed by the moral standards of Western civilisation.

4. Instead of seeking for deeper reasons, the existence of wars and of the Israelite nation destroying the 'pagans' in the land by God's command were implied to show that God (if He exists) must be a 'nasty' God.

5. Instead of allowing for rational discussion, with each party seeking to expand their own understanding, all the atrocities and suffering of the current world were ascribed to God. Because God is assumed to have complete control over the world, surely He would stop the suffering... if He loves us?

6. The popularity of this notion furthered the idea that we don't need to take responsibility for our actions... if God exists, "He made me this way and He made me do it."

7. The irony is ignored. "If God exists, then He must have made me this way" is not satisfactory for anyone (Christians don't believe it and atheists don't like it), and so atheists use it as their reason for "Therefore God doesn't exist" (rather than, "maybe God didn't make me this way..."). However, if God doesn't exist, then they can't blame God for why they are the way they are... which would imply they they themselves are responsible.

8. But atheists don't like responsibility, which leads to many studies into what factors help make people the way they are: childhood upbringing, abuse, influences, etc. However, no study is completely conclusive because there are always some people who turned out well despite their circumstances: people who made good choices because they took responsibility.

9. Not having God to blame and not having sufficient evidence to blame 'circumstances', something had to be done. Enter 'white privilege'. It's the new concept which is not measurable, not fully understood, and certainly not allowed to be critiqued. It must simply be 'accepted'.

10. 'White privilege' allows people to not have to look at themselves for their troubles. It's their scapegoat. "I am what I am because... white privilege." 'White privilege' to the rational minded has all the same traits as God does to the atheist: not measurable, not fully understood, not allowed to be critiqued (because of it's non-existence), and must be the reason for why the world is the way it is. Just as God 'allowed genocide' (the Israelites killing other nations), 'white privilege' also allows genocide: the disempowerment of, abuse towards and disposal of... white people.

Hence, 'white privilege' is the new god.

But 'white privilege' won't get you out of trouble. It won't save your soul. It's simply a pseudo-reason for why your life is the way it is. It disregards a white person who is poor, and it disregards a black person who has 'made it'.

Will Smith? Barak Obama? Did they have 'white privilege'??

It's another excuse for people to avoid taking responsibility for themselves. Therefore, is it any wonder that the proponents of such an imaginary concept are liberals?

Tuesday 28 November 2017

Misleading News

I recently came across this article.

The title is "Bigger turnout in Australia's same-sex marriage vote than in Brexit".
The url even contains "more-people-have-voted-in-same-sex-marriage-vote-than-brexit".

This is wrong.

The basis for the incorrect information? For the Brexit vote, 72% of the UK population voted. For Australia's same-sex marriage vote, supposedly 79% of Australia's population voted.*

If you haven't spotted the problem yet, you definitely need to keep reading.

Percentages do not mean the number of people. The UK has a population of 65.5 million people. Australia has a population of 24.5 million. This means:

For Brexit: 72% of 65.5 million = 47.16 million people voted (which is already more than the entire population of Australia).
For Australia's same-sex marriage: 79% of 24.5 million = 19.36 million people voted.

Therefore, we can easily see that more people voted in Brexit than in Australia's same-sex marriage.
Therefore, the 'bigger turnout' was clearly for Brexit (because that implies number of people).
And this is just from using basic high school maths.

This is just one of many instances where news reports will carefully word things to give you the impression that the statistics are saying something they're not.

The conclusion: people should always question information they see in the news, especially if the organisation calls itself "Pink News".



* The vote was postal, and there are reports of people collecting and sending off multiple voting papers, essentially nullifying the result.

Sunday 26 November 2017

Micro$oft updates and invasiveness

I'd been putting off updating my computer... Micro$oft always has errors when they 'update', so I try to leave it a few days so that the 'fix' becomes available and I can 'update' and 'fix' the update at the same time.

Back in the day, you would buy your computer, and if you didn't need access to the internet, you wouldn't need to update anything really. Sure, your programs might get out of date, but they would still work.

Alas, those days are over... so many programs run on a 'subscription' basis. This means that you can't just buy the program and use it forever. Instead, you have to pay for the program and continue paying in order to receive the services. My old Microsoft Office 2003 was awesome. But because they've stopped updating older versions, I've had to upgrade... to Micro$oft Office 365, where I have to pay monthly or yearly subscription. Hence, "Micro$oft".

But the latest issue is with Windows 10.

The updates are incredibly annoying. I don't just mean in terms of the time it takes to download and install them, I mean what they actually do to the computer.

Now, every time my computer updates, I have to spend additional time going through the settings to find out what Micro$oft have sneakily changed... without my permission. Their argument would be that by buying their product, I am therefore subject to their way of doing things. I understand that, but I still think it's wrong. I'm still thinking of changing from Windows to Linux.

This latest update has installed something called "Mixed Reality Viewer". I have no idea what it is (maybe one day I'll be curious enough to investigate), but what disturbed me is that it automatically enabled my camera and microphone.

I take privacy very seriously. A recent report of Google tracking people, even without their permission, is something I had already suspected. These huge companies are all about the money. This is why so many services have become subscriptions. But it also means that they can make more money by selling your data. Companies always want to collect data to know how to advertise more effectively. Google Ads, for example, is tailored to what you may be interested in.

Facebook is possibly the world's largest personnel database. Despite me not being on it, I can still access a lot of information that other people put up there. Why wouldn't the CEO of such a major company be working with governments to make more money? Facebook can sell information. Micro$oft can give remote access to to you computer's microphone and camera.

All because some 'update' did something without people knowing.



UPDATE:
In this latest update, Micro$oft also changed my default video player back to their "Films & TV" program. Again, forcing customers to use their products instead of third-party products.

Saturday 25 November 2017

A good reason to come off Facebook

I came off Facebook many years ago. I firmly believe my life is better for it.

But for the multitudes who are still on it, here's a word of warning...

- In Pakistan, you can be killed for 'blasphemy'. As it's a Muslim country, this means anything against Islam or Mohammed.

- Pakistan asked Facebook for help in identifying 'blasphemers'. Basically, anyone who supports a view or religion which does not hold Islam in the highest regard.

- Facebook said, "Yes." (Another article here.)

- A few months ago, a Pakistani was sentenced to death over comments he made on Facebook.


Pakistan does not have freedom of religion. Facebook is supporting this. Watch what you say, or come off Facebook.

Here's a video about it.

Wednesday 15 November 2017

Why the Leftist reaction is juvenile

Since the election (democratically, I would add) of Donald Trump in the US, there has been an incredible amount of activism from those who do not support him.

It's juvenile (immature and childish, for the educationally-challenged). Here's why:

1. In a democratic society, you vote to decide the government. Not everyone will vote for the person who gets elected, but that's democracy. To react against the elected leader is just like the child who doesn't get his/her* own way.

2. 'Social' issues such as transgenderism, gun control and race equality have dominated the media. These are all things that the political Left would like to change. The Left has become quite vocal about it, much like the little child who feels wronged by a parent and tries to justify his/her* preferences in the hope that he/she* can still get what he/she* wants.

3. Leftist groups have become very politically active, not only holding protests, but actively rioting. They have slandered, abused and shut down (also called 'no-platforming') people who don't share their views. They have vandalised property and even caused injury during such riots. This is just like the hormonally imbalanced teenager who thinks, "Punish me? Put me in my place? I'll show them!" It's essentially a bully tactic. It's a behaviour trait of the selfish brat who can't take correction and decides to cause more wrong and harm in response.

4. Young people (teenagers, especially) will do whatever they can to get their own way. They come up with the most ridiculous of excuses for things. One example (and this is completely true) is of a girl at school who said, "It's really hot in here!" It was suggested that, since it was summer, she took her jumper off. She responded "I can't do that... I'm not wearing a shirt!" Why wasn't she wearing a shirt? Because she wanted to wear a pink bra to school. The pink bra is visible through the white school shirt, which would land her in trouble. In order to hide the pink bra, she wore her school jumper. But to wear a shirt and a jumper would be far too hot, so she decided to lose the shirt.

The result? No one could see her bra anyway, so no one knew it was pink. The whole excuse was... so that she could wear a pink bra, presumably to make some sort of statement that she will not be forced to wear a white bra.

The Left does the same thing. They come up with all sorts of reasons for their ridiculous viewpoints. This is why we now have to put with 50+ genders in some cases. They clutch at straws to find a professor who will do some sort of pseudoscience to 'prove' that there's more than just male and female.

5. Extreme 'equality' all started with gay marriage. The false premise that marriage is only about two people who love each other led people to flirt with the idea of two people of the same sex getting married. This led to questions about relationships and gender. Not only is marriage being redefined, but gender is too. In fact, why put limits on sexuality at all? Incest is now being discussed, because the premise is: 'if two people love each other...'. This is why it's a false premise. It's just like the child who says, "Why are you telling me to be quiet, and not the other people who are talking? If you were a fair person, you would make sure everyone was treated the same!" Unfortunately, the child conveniently forgets that they were shouting expletives at the top of their voice, and the other children were whispering quietly. The logical process is misguided.

6. Teenagers used to be renowned for thinking they know everything and adults know nothing, then realising (in their 20s) that, in reality, they were wrong. Hence the comment, "When I was 16 I knew everything. When I was 21 I realised how much my parents had learned in the last 5 years!" Unfortunately, we have a wave of millennials who were poorly educated, spent too much time with Facebook, Instagram, Tumblr, Twitter and countless other 'social media' applications^ that they didn't bother to further their education outside of the institution that gave them their 'free' and 'entitled' education. These people have therefore never learned that, as a teenager, they still had a lot to learn, and so they think that those teenage views are perfectly valid and completely rational. And they are encouraging the new wave of teenagers to believe the same.


It really is time for them to grow up.


* Because the reality is that there are only two genders or sexes: male and female. Sorry to bust the bubble.
^ I wonder how many young people nowadays realise that 'app' is just an abbreviation of 'application'?

Segregation resurgence

In order to have true equality between all people, during the 1800s and 1900s, many attempts were made to end the segregation of black people and white people. These steps were seen by society as progression.

An old idea of 'separate but equal' was shown to have failed: services and conveniences for black people were not well maintained and were often of lower quality. 'Separate' was not compatible with 'equal', and that is why we have the equality we have today. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than how it was.

In the UK, there are concerns that there is not enough 'mixing' of race happening in universities:
"If we are to create a more tolerant UK society, where people are aware and respectful of cultural and ethnic difference, it is vital that greater mixing happens."

But it seems that a new wave of American young people - millennials, no less - have new, ground-breaking notions of a progressive society and a utopian future.

Their idea? In order for a society of equality and inclusion, there must be provision of 'safe spaces' for ethnic minorities.

To put it bluntly, segregation is now politically correct!!

Michigan University has a space for "black students and students of color to organize and do social justice work" [sic].

"California State University Los Angeles recently rolled out segregated housing for black students."

"North Carolina State University might create segregated student housing for African American women." (Essentially, segregation by race and sex...)

This is apparently seen as a step forward, part of a 'progressive' society.
There has long been a debate in the UK about exams getting easier (I know my exams were easier than those 20 years before me).

But when people believe that this 'easier education' (because they are entitled to education) is of the same standard of past generations... and so they don't bother to do their own research and logical thinking... we end up with a society of segregation and ideas like this:

The interdependence of black and white

I've recently seen some videos of "A day without white people" and "A world without black people".
Here are my thoughts...


If black people were to disappear right now, the world might look different, but it would still function (at least for a while).
If white people were to disappear right now, the world would probably descend into chaos much, much faster.

However, it's the roles of black and white people throughout history that has made the world what it is - better for some, worse for others. White people may well be more academically minded and may well have invented more things. But the white people only enjoy the current society because it is built on the shoulders of black people. More precisely, modern civilisation is built by the hands of black people.

If it wasn't for the slave trade, for the forced labour of black people by whites, then the world would be very different. Cheap labour for the whites to prosper: if equality was there from the start, the "American Dream" would be impossible. I'm not saying the slave trade was right, just that it's history and we can't change that.

But underpaid labour still exists: sweatshops still exist; white people taking advantage of less developed countries which are primarily black. In Western countries like America, the inequality is negligible, brought to the fore because of people who seem annoyed to have to work hard to reach their 'dreams' (or even to survive).

But the real inequality is how the West treats the Third World. I have seen first hand how a group of white people (Americans, and supposed 'Christians' too) wanted to take over an orphanage organisation in Southern Africa and the way they did it was essentially by saying, "We'll give you the money you need to survive if we are in charge and you do things our way, otherwise we'll give you nothing." Notice that it's only the money to survive, not to thrive.

And that's the problem. The West (white majority) use the less developed countries to their own ends, allowing them to 'survive' but nothing more. The next time you go to the supermarket, look at where your food comes from. If it's from a less developed country, it's probably produced by something akin to slave labour.

For true equality to exist throughout the world right now, everyone living in a developed country would have to give something up. Not just rich people, but everyone. A black community in USA is far better off than the slums in India.

The world is what it is. It's not perfect, and it never will be. We all need to help make it a better place, but the only way to really make a difference is by sacrifice. No one should exploit anyone else for personal gain. The current tend (including Black Lives Matter) is an attempt to exploit the wealthy for their own ends. We need to turn our focus onto ourselves: what can I do to make the world a better place? What can I do to make the life of someone worse off than me just a little bit better?

Stop ranting at the rich. Stop ranting at the whites. Lead by example.

Saturday 11 November 2017

It's a sad day...

I recently came across this news story (also here). I was shocked.

Here's the gist:
- A bunch of students became offended, resulting in a weekend camping retreat being cancelled.
- The students were offended over... a banana skin.
- The reason for the offence was... hate-crime/racism.

SERIOUSLY?!?!

The cause was that there was no rubbish bin nearby. The person eating the banana (immaturely) threw the skin at a tree. "Immaturely" because he should have just held onto it until he found a bin, (not because the action could be seen as racist).

He even said: "Although unintentional, there is no excuse for the pain that was caused..."

The problem of littering should be treated for what it is. Not treated as an act of racism.

Some people need to travel around. Get some cultural experience outside of the USA. Many countries have litter lining the streets, including banana skins. No one gets offended by it.

I honestly can't believe that some parts of the world have to this. And then... I also found this article: another piece of trash causes offence.

But I can't work out what's upsetting me more:
- that people are getting offended over trash,
- that the police actually waste time looking into these incidents, or
- that such things are even newsworthy.

A message for every other country of the world (especially my homeland, the United Kingdom):
Please don't become this dumb!!

Friday 10 November 2017

The current problem with USA

I think this video illustrates nicely the current problem in America between pro- and anti-Trump supporters. I'm not pro-Trump, I'm just anti-stupidity. Following the bandwagon because it seems 'trendy' with the people around you is idiotic in supposed 'free countries'.

Thursday 9 November 2017

Transgender Law Concerns

The following article is taken from here. It is a talk from a meeting which was held in the House of Commons on October 31st, 2017. It is reposted with permission.
--------------------
Self-Declared Gender Identity: The Impact on Children and Adolescents
by Stephanie Davies-Arai, Transgender Trend

I would also like to express my thanks to David Davies MP for setting up this event and to everyone for attending. I will be speaking on behalf of parents of all political persuasions and I would like to express their gratitude too.

The parents I am representing are not the ones you see celebrated in the media. I speak for those who describe their experience as akin to having a son or daughter lost to a cult, with a devastating impact on siblings and on the family as a whole.

These parents are not bigoted, they are caring parents who would describe themselves as liberal and tolerant, parents who would always love and support their child no matter what the outcome.

I also speak to urge caution on behalf of the children of this generation who are caught up in the teaching of a new rigid, anti-science belief system presented to them as fact. [1]

If Gender Identity is established in law as a Protected Characteristic, it will apply to children of any age. But a child’s identity is not fixed: it changes over time, and it is shaped by factors like parental approval and societal influences. If all trusted adults are reinforcing daily a little boy’s belief that he is really a girl, this will have an obvious self-fulfilling effect. Puberty blockers supply the ‘answer’ to the created fear of a puberty he now believes to be the ‘wrong’ one.

Almost all children on blockers progress to cross-sex hormones at age 16. [2] Very few come off this path of increasingly invasive medical treatments once they are on it and so-called ‘social transition’ is the first step. This approach clearly works to prevent normal resolution of childhood gender dysphoria and foster persistence of opposite-sex identity.

While trans activists call for the de-medicalisation of ‘transgender,’ in the case of children they campaign aggressively for social transition, blockers and cross-sex hormones at ever earlier ages.[3]

The surge in sex hormones at puberty triggers the enormous changes in the teenage brain which don’t complete their job until the mid-twenties. [4] The brain /personality is not fully-formed until then. The effects of blockers on adolescent brain development are unknown [5] although studies on adults, including men taking the drug for prostate cancer, indicate risk of memory loss, depression and cognitive impairment. [6] Recent reports from the US indicate long-term serious health effects for women who were administered blockers for precocious puberty, such as excruciating muscle and bone pain, depression, weakness and fatigue. [7]

Preventing a child’s sexual development in early puberty, followed at 16 by cross-sex hormones, results in sterility as viable eggs or sperm have not developed. [8] These children are prevented from ever experiencing puberty: hormones can only superficially feminise or masculinise secondary sex characteristics, they cannot create the puberty of the opposite sex. Risks of cross-sex hormones include cardiac disease, high blood pressure, blood clots, strokes, diabetes and cancers. [9] Some significant effects are irreversible, such as male-pattern baldness and body and facial hair, masculinised voice and compromised fertility.

There have been no clinical research trials into the long-term effects of this treatment on children: this is a non evidence-based practice [10] to treat a non evidence-based diagnosis of being ‘a girl trapped in a boy’s body’ and vice versa [11] and this generation of children are the guinea pigs.

‘Transgender’ is an ideological label distinct from the clinical diagnosis ‘gender dysphoria.’ To call a child ‘transgender’ is to make both a claim that the child’s feelings represent material reality and a prediction about that child’s future: they will not change.

An analysis of all published research studies of children with ‘gender dysphoria’ shows that 80% will naturally come to be happy as the sex they were born [12] and this is true of even some of the most severe cases, we can’t know which children will persist and which will desist.

Opposite-sex identity in childhood is overwhelmingly predictive of gay or lesbian sexual orientation in adulthood, not transsexualism. [13] Affirming a child’s ‘gender identity’ can therefore be seen as gay conversion therapy by another name.

There has been an almost 1000% increase in children referred to the Tavistock clinic in London over the past 6 years. [14] These figures are inflated by the unprecedented rise in the number of girls – nearly 70% of the figure overall and over 70% of adolescent referrals last year. [15] By comparison, in the late Sixties 90% of adult transsexuals were male. [16]

We are aware that teenagers and young adults are susceptible to indoctrination, brainwashing and social contagion which is why we block online anorexia and self-harm sites. The internet, however, is chock-full of Tumblr bloggers and Youtube vloggers with hundreds of thousands of followers, who are selling vulnerable young people the myth of transformation through cosmetic alteration of their bodies, including amputation of healthy body parts, and a lifetime’s dependency on powerful off label hormones.

Recent reports of girls’ mental health indicate that girls and young women in the UK are in crisis. [17] Recently published evidence of the rate of sexual abuse and harassment in schools across the UK is a matter of national shame. [18]

Reports such as the recent Stonewall Schools Report [19] which indicate high suicidal ideation in ‘trans’ youth serve to cover up the fact that the vast majority of these youngsters will be teenage girls, now hidden in the category ‘trans boys.’

A PSHE teacher and Head of Year at a large comprehensive told me that in her school the kids who identify as ‘trans’ are, without exception, either lesbian, autism spectrum, have mental health problems or have suffered sexual abuse.

Parents are also concerned about the relentless gender identity propaganda their children are subject to today – across the media, [20] the internet and in schools, through organisations such as GIRES, Gendered Intelligence, Mermaids and Educate and Celebrate. The belief that gender is an innate identity is taught to children as truth, with no alternative views offered, in contravention of the UN Rights of the Child.

The ‘transition or suicide’ trope is repeated endlessly, against all Samaritans guidelines. There is no evidence that children will commit suicide if their parents fail to support them in taking a medical pathway, but of course the threat terrifies parents into feeling they have to.

There are over 260 trans youth support groups across the UK [21], which provide the ‘tribe’ where our most vulnerable young people will be accepted, maybe for the first time, as long as they identify as trans. All transgender organisations advertise their support for ‘gender non-conforming’ youth, sweeping up all children who are ‘different’ and don’t fit in.

These organisations claim to support ‘diversity’ but of course they do the opposite: a girl who rejects feminine stereotypes is transformed into a ‘boy’ who conforms to masculine stereotypes. Gender non-conformity is erased. Regressive and reactionary sex-stereotyping is being sold to young people as a progressive social justice movement.

To teach children that their ‘authentic self’ is something in their heads, split off from and in opposition to, the body, is to create gender dysphoria. Mind-body disassociation is recognised as a state of mental ill-health: in this case uniquely, it is presented as a normal variation and something to be celebrated. Mental health is based on being equipped to accept reality.

Since children have been taught that it is their ‘gender identity’ which makes them a boy or a girl and not their biological sex, calls to Childline from young people confused about their gender have doubled in a year – eight calls are now received every day from children as young as eleven. [22] The concept of ‘gender identity’ is clearly – and inevitably – causing mental health problems for young people.

Any child who suffers genuine gender dysphoria must of course be sensitively supported in schools and youth organisations. But teachers, professionals and other children cannot be asked to collude in the reinforcement of a child’s belief which contradicts reality. Recognition of biological facts is not bigotry.

When girls are told that a male classmate is now a girl, their sense of their own reality is shattered. If a biological male is a girl, then it is not female biology which makes you a girl, it is something else. Girls must look to a male classmate to find out the invisible magic quality they need, and the boy is given the power to define what a girl is. We cannot predict the long-term practical or psychological effects on girls taught to deny their own biology, without the right to even define themselves correctly as the female sex.

If teenage girls must consent to a male classmate using their toilets and changing-rooms they learn that their boundaries may be violated and their consent is unimportant. Girls learn that they are not always allowed to say ‘no.’ This is grooming; lessons on the importance of consent become meaningless.

Girls who are coached at school into ignoring their own discomfort and intuition may go on to put themselves in risky situations with any man who claims to be a woman, out of fear of being seen as transphobic.

In the case of public swimming pool changing rooms a young girl cannot name a male with a penis as a man: voyeurism and indecent exposure cease to exist as crimes if a man claims to be a woman. Normal child protection protocols effectively become unlawful.

I urge ministers to vote against the implementation of self-declared gender legislation, pending full investigation into the operation of transgender youth organisations and the impact on children and adolescents, including the implications for child protection and safeguarding, especially for girls. Expert testimony from professionals, including experts in child and adolescent development and psychology, and specific feminist analysis on the impact on girls is essential.

What I typically hear from parents is:

“I feel like I’m going through a death of my child and everyone is just cheering her on. When I found your website I cried with relief.”

But I am also contacted by young people themselves and I will end by quoting the most distressing message I received, from a young woman who asked simply this:

“Would you know how to get my body back? Would you know if anyone’s yet sued their doctor?”



References:
[1] https://www.gires.org.uk/classroom-lesson-plans/
[2] Hot Topics in Child Health conference, 12 June 2017, evidence from Dr Polly Carmichael, Tavistock clinic
[3] http://www.gires.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/GIRES-Young-People-Elsewhere-Observations-regarding-cross-sex-hormones.pdf
[4] https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/teenage-brain1.htm
[5] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2444866417301101
[6] http://dailysignal.com/2017/07/03/im-pediatrician-transgender-ideology-infiltrated-field-produced-large-scale-child-abuse/amp/
[7] https://californiahealthline.org/news/women-fear-drug-they-used-to-halt-puberty-led-to-health-problems/
[8] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/when-transgender-kids-transition-medical-risks-are-both-known-and-unknown/
[9] http://dailysignal.com/2017/07/03/im-pediatrician-transgender-ideology-infiltrated-field-produced-large-scale-child-abuse/amp/
[10] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26119518
[11] http://www.ozy.com/provocateurs/the-modern-master-of-sex/67782
[12] http://www.sexologytoday.org/2016/01/do-trans-kids-stay-trans-when-they-grow_99.html
[13] https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/262671
[14] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35532491
[15] https://www.transgendertrend.com/from-adult-males-to-teenage-girls-the-movement-from-etiology-to-ideology/
[16] http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/women-and-equalities-committee/transgender-equality/written/19532.html
[17] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41671060
[18] https://www.women2win.com/news/women-and-equalities-committee-chair-maria-miller-responds-girls-attitudes-survey-2017
[19] http://www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/the_school_report_2017.pdf
[20] http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/proginfo/2014/46/my-life
[21] https://www.tranzwiki.net/
[22] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/13/childline-eight-calls-a-day-gender-identity-issues-children-nspcc-helpline-transgender?CMP=share_btn_tw

Tuesday 7 November 2017

A dangerous road...

Can you believe that this guy managed to be allowed to use female changing facilities?!

It makes me wonder...

Would I (as a straight white male... you know, the lowest of the low...) would be able to get away with:
"Excuse me, but I identify as a black female lesbian."

Would I be allowed, or would I be done for 'hate speech'/'micro-aggression' towards blacks and/or females and/or lesbians?

YouTuber finds faith

I found this comment on YouTube:

This guy has clearly experienced the freeing power of God.

Christians need to stop limiting God's power: faith that is only beneficial when you die is substandard!

Saturday 4 November 2017

Faith and morality

I came across the following comment:

It's a classic example of a statement which sounds reasonable, but is, in fact, flawed.

Firstly, the internal logic.
This person finds the idea "disgusting" because "people do the most evil things based on faith."
The justification (the second statement) is not the only conclusion to the idea in the first statement: people also do the most amazing acts of kindness and compassion based on faith.

Secondly, the second statement itself.
The implication here is that people do evil things based on faith, therefore faith is wrong.
The truth is: people do evil things... and they will clutch at straws to find justification for it.

The very notion of 'evil' cannot exist without the prerequisite of a religion of some sort. If there is no spirituality at all, then no action can be considered 'evil', only a part of human nature.

But that's just semantics due to a bad word choice: the writer of the comment means that people do the most morally questionable things based on faith. So let's work with that.

People do evil (or morally questionable) things. That's all there is to it. The question is the justification:
Some people use faith as their justification.
Some people use their position in society as justification.
Some people use their negative experiences as a child as their justification.
Some people use their gender as justification (many women criticise men in ways they would find offensive if a man did the same to them).
Some people use their 'human rights' as justification.
Some people use the current trend of victimhood as their justification (such as SJWs being aggressive and racist towards white males).

Wednesday 1 November 2017

FGM in this post-modern era

It makes me wonder...

What kind of world do we live in where female genital mutilation (FGM) is criticised and lobbied against, and even made illegal by some governments, as if it was some form of evil...

... but sex changes for young people are encouraged?!?

In fact, I am told that I am a 'bigot' and a 'transphobe' if I do not encourage the sex change of a young person, despite the fact that it is, essentially, genital mutilation.

What an idiotic world.

Monday 30 October 2017

My issue with 'transgenderism'

As time goes by, many things become 'trendy' and the new 'in' thing. In the last few decades, there's been 'free love' and the hippie culture, then there was 'coming out' as gay, and now it's transgenderism.

But what is a 'progressive society'? I used to think that it meant advancing the human race for the better. I used to think that it meant streamlining processes and administration so that things became faster and easier but with better protections.

Unfortunately, I was wrong It seems that a 'progressive society' is one that submits itself to the current social trends, regardless of how contrary it is to rational thinking.

I used to think that truth was a value to aspire to. Science claims to be devoted to discovering the truth of the universe. People get frustrated with those who tell lies and get others to believe it. (I've had people lie about me, and I feel an injustice has been done to me. I don't think I'm anything special to have felt that way, I've just assumed that's normal.)

But this is where transgenderism and the 'victim culture' is going.

Please note that I use the term 'transgenderism' to refer to the new sexual revolution: where people feel they have the 'right' to 'decide' which 'gender' they want to be, and they may even ask medical professionals to mutilate their genitals in the process.

I recently watched this video of a debate about the issue. From watching it, I realised one of the biggest issues I have with transgenderism... bigger than people thinking they have a right to choose their genetic makeup, it's the issue of truth.

And so I left the following comment:

From 15:40 we see a person claim to have not seen anything regarding the violence that broke out in the clip. This message is aimed at the police due to the words, "Officer, I didn't see anything." The same person states, "Nothing happened, officer," despite claiming, "I didn't see anything." The smug smile got me thinking, so I went back... because at 15:16 the SAME person is seen in the clip, standing right behind the person who initiated the violence.

Here is my issue with this:
A person lying to the police (smug smile plus the middle finger to the camera operator, to add to it), and the repetition of the statement to try to get noticed, so that the false statement can become 'official'.

Here are my conclusions:
- It seems that a certain 'community' will allow violence in order to promote their community and ideology.
- That same 'community' will promote lies to further their ideology.
 - Therefore, part of their ideology is that truth must be silenced if it seeks to undermine their agenda.

Let's assume for a moment that the person with the yellow hat was being truthful by saying, "I didn't see anything."
1. The glasses aren't strong enough.
2. There is still lies: you cannot claim to have not seen anything whilst making a statement that "nothing happened."

I'm not bashing anyone, I'm just applying logic. And logic seems to me to be the biggest omission in the current gender agenda.

Sunday 29 October 2017

Elitism

I've recently heard some things about 'white privilege' and for many years, I've been interested in this notion of private or Grammar Schools being classified as 'elitist'. Some people in the UK feel hard done by because they didn't go to such a school, and they feel the solution is to get rid of them.

Here's an article from 2012 regarding shock or surprise that over 80% of people in the government went to 'elite' schools. And here's an article from this year illustrating a wish for extra burdens on these 'elite' schools, because they seem to be seen as a way for the rich to get richer.

My current thinking is that elitism is essentially about language.

To create an elite group, you need to have a language that only your group understand. This is done in one of two ways:

1)  Use complicated language that outsiders can't understand. This is seen in certain churches (using words such as 'transubstantiation', 'substitutionary atonement', and so on) and also in politics, where every sentence has to be carefully dissected to understand what they are really talking about.

2) Use a set of acronyms that outsiders can't understand. Most organisations do this, usually to help speed up communication, but it has the same effect. In my life, I have worked with people who are classified as ADD, ADHD, ASD, MAT, ODD, SLD, and so on. My job descriptions have also included being described as a SLSO, SST, SW, TA, YW and probably more.

Both methods make it difficult for outsiders to become part of the group. More than this, the language can be used to show how far 'in' with the group a person is. People who use the specialised language as part of conversation are clearly 'high up' in the group, and people who struggle to use it are clearly on the outside. It's essentially the cultural barrier of language, but in an environment where the 'ins' and 'outs' are meant to be speaking the same language.

The problem is made worse in the instance when the two groups should be speaking the same language. Because so many words are understood, the problems will make the insider feel frustrated: often resulting in feeling like the outsider is stupid, or, more recently, making the insider tell the outsider to essentially 'get with the times'.

I say 'more recently' because that is exactly what's happening with the current social trend of transgenderism. With 'political correctness' reaching an idiotic level, people subscribing to transgenderism are using the misunderstanding of their elite language to implicate people as bullies or supporters of 'hate crime'.

When written like that, it seems ridiculous. But it's happening.

Whilst on the one hand governments are trying to prevent elitism, society is forming it's own elite group in the form of this supposedly 'trendy' transgenderism... and now the elite group are forcing the hand of governments to make the rest of the population submit to their wishes.

Elitism has not been eradicated. And that means segregation has not been eradicated either. History is repeating itself, it's just that the rules are changing.

Saturday 28 October 2017

The 'right' to what I want

I have recently read about the struggles of Jordan Peterson who has refused to use the 'genderless pronouns' that some of the LGBT(add-a-letter) community are insisting on. The debate involves whether someone has a 'right' to be called what they want.

My question is this:
If a person who was born with a vagina has a 'right' to be called what they want (and that includes being called something that is contrary to their birth biology), then can the same be applied to me?

For example, I would like people to refer to me as 'Doctor' rather than 'Mister'. Do I have the right to that terminology, even though I don't have a PhD?

A woman who has transgendered to try to become a man doesn't have a working penis. If they have a 'right' to be called what they want, why can't I?

Why can't I call it 'hate speech' if I'm not called 'Doctor'?

Tuesday 24 October 2017

Finally: reason has a voice!

Having just read this article, I am pleased to find that the voice of reason is beginning to be heard!

It's worth a read. It shows just how far political correctness and 'tolerance' has gone.

Ridiculous Britain

I just came across this article.

A Church of England school has a Christian group come in to teach a bit of Christianity. Reading between the lines, it seems they teach that when people do things wrong, it's called sin. However, some parents kicked up a fuss, saying that their kids had been upset by this. (They said that this was an extremist view!) As a result, the headteacher submits to the parents' complaints and bans that Christian group from the school.

Here are the problems:

1. It should come as no surprise that a Church of England school might teach Christianity. Surely people would wonder why it is called a Church of England school if they didn't teach Christianity?

2. What are the parents really upset about? The article makes out that it was due to "teaching them about sin"... is this implying that kids shouldn't be told that people do bad things in the world, and that we all do things wrong at times? Has society really got to the point where we no longer believe that minor misdemeanours are still wrong, and that those who do believe such things must be extremists?

3. A headteacher of a Church school apologising to parents for - essentially - being a Church school.

Now, as if the article itself wasn't bad enough, the 'Comments' section shows a greater level of stupidity:

Thankfully, the word 'wrongdoing' can be defined as 'sin'. Interestingly, having grown up (as a Christian) with the understanding that sin is simply the term used for all bad things (from lying about homework to mass murder), 'sin' does seem to sometimes be defined as a theological concept, however it is not considered a purely theological concept. It still refers to moral wrong.

Plus, given that the vast majority (over 95%) of the world's population describe themselves as having an element of spirituality or some sort, certainly those people will understand the word 'sin' and I would be very surprised to find that they have "moved on from equating it to wrongdoing."

Since 'sin' is almost always equated with 'wrongdoing', given the nature of the school being a Church of England school, even if it is considered a theological concept, it would not be out of place.

Added to which, most people wish to see 'wrongdoing' punished - hence the justice system. The real theological aspect to 'sin' would be the result: that unforgiven sin would result in an unpleasant punishment of some form... what is commonly referred to as 'hell'.

Parents should be able to pull something good from this: children are now questioning their actions and it should open up the way for discussions on consequences. Such a discussion is much needed in Western society today.

This is potentially a pathway the UK will walk down unless political correctness is brought to reason.

This was a comment that caught my attention: the question of 'choice'.

There is always a choice. If a person is truly unhappy with something, they will make a change. Parents seem to be happy with the school being a Church of England school. When something like this comes up where a parent disagrees, it is the current social trend to try to force the school to change.

It is not a case of there not being agreeable schools in the area, it's a case that the parents don't want the inconvenience of moving house in order to be close to a more agreeable school. It's essentially selfish. The options are simple:
a) Accept the school for the way it is.*
b) Move to a different school in the local area (which may also be Church related).
c) Move house to find a more agreeable school.

It seems that these parents (as per the current trend) wish the least inconvenience to themselves: write a letter using current political buzzwords such as 'extremism' to force their view.

The current glorification of 'rights' prevents people from seeing a move in location as a viable option. It's as if they think, "I have a right to live where I want and for the government to provide me with an agreeable school nearby."

That attitude is selfish and destructive.


*Unless the school is openly abusing children, in which case it should most certainly be reported. But such a school would not last long as responsible parents would be uncomfortable with it and remove their children from it. But talking about 'sin' or other concepts (theological or otherwise) is not a form of abuse.

Wednesday 18 October 2017

Political Correctness

Political Correctness
Fighting for your right to be offended.


Get a life, snowflake.

Tuesday 3 October 2017

Gender issues extend

If we take the current trend of transgenderism to its logical conclusion where it sets a precedent in the rules of rational thinking, we get this:


Won't the world be a better place for it?

Tuesday 26 September 2017

Technology takeover

I never use Google Chrome unless I'm using someone else's device, but I was reading this article about someone changing from Chrome.

One sentence made me realise that my prior gut feeling that too much technology is dangerous is true:
"In other words, Google was still able to reach into my machine and forcibly update my software."

I have often been cautious of technological privacy, closing down my Facebook account back in 2009, never using Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, and many others. My online presence is considerably limited compared with the vast majority of people.

One update from Facebook, many years ago, made it possible for everyone to view your profile and everything posted... with a privacy option to disable it if you didn't want it.

Software developers often send out updates. This is to be expected, since new technology often prevents old software from working correctly/effectively, and can provide new opportunities.

But I get concerned when it's forced upon us. Adobe Flash Player is one of my pet hates: as soon as a new update is available, everything which uses it seems to stop working until it is updated. When I go to update it, it pre-checks a little box asking me whether I would like to install McAfee antivirus as well. The 'auto-completion' is what annoys me, the assumption that I clearly want a particular product in addition to the one I've sought out.

Although Adobe Flash stops working when an update is released, at least it lets me do the updating in my own time.

When I recently upgraded to Windows 10, I spent about two hours going through all the privacy settings, switching everything off so that I didn't broadcast to the world.
Being a UK citizen, I often want to find out things from the UK, not my current location.
I don't want other devices to 'see' my device because they might find a way to install unwanted programs/viruses.

Google still insists that I make it my homepage, when it is already my homepage.

A recent update to Firefox means I had to cope with a 'Firefox Screenshots' icon, a feature I didn't want and won't use. I didn't ask for it, it just appeared. I eventually found a way to remove it, but it wasn't through the usual method of removing extensions, it was more involved.

Just a few months ago, Microsoft announced they were going to remove Paint in an update. This meant that a program I had used for many years would be removed from my system without my approval. Thankfully, Microsoft had underestimated how many people loved Paint, and so it (currently) still remains.

But it's that attitude of "We can to do to your computer whatever we want" that really gets me.

Imagine reading a book. You like it, so some time later you read it again, but the story's changed.

Many books get updated, but the old editions are still around (albeit hard to find sometimes). Software used to be like that. But the new world of technology assumes that updates are always better, faster, more perfect.

And, to top it all off, new updates can override your previous settings (also mentioned in the article at the start of this post). This means that people will have to go through all their settings every time a new update is installed for a piece of software. But also, a new update could change the settings so that you no longer have the option to 'opt-out' of the privacy risk.

The scariest part is that it's a step towards the 'self-awareness' of technology that films such as Terminator 2 and I, Robot use as science-fiction plot lines.

The current problem is that technology companies are called to account for their actions only after the update has been released and caused issues. Which means, if the issues are quashed, the company gets away with it. It's no secret that younger people are more technologically tuned in, but their desperation to keep up with the current social trend means they may not always read the small print, and companies can use them to get their product out there before the dangers become apparent.

We need to be smart with our use of technology.

'Equality' is not evolutionary

In my recent post on equality, I mentioned that life does not support equality (as it is currently understood).

To take this a step further, nature itself does not support equality. The evolutionary principle of survival of the fittest only works in an elitist environment. The 'fittest' are the elite, which is why they survive.

Interestingly, since evolution relies on the extinction of species for new species to progress, the idea of things like saving the tigers goes completely against evolution.

Species are not equal. Nature does not support equality. The universe does not support equality: our planet is better suited to life than every other planet in our solar system (and possibly the whole universe), it is not 'equal' with other planets in this area!

So 'equality' is a notion that can only be applied to humans. As a result, we must be careful about its application. Current societal trends based on the false application of 'equality' are jeopardising future reproduction of the human race,* which could essentially lead to our own extinction.

Perhaps we've got equality wrong.
Perhaps we've got evolution wrong.


* Homosexual couples cannot reproduce naturally. People who undergo gender reassignment surgery (aka a sex change) essentially have their sex organs mutilated, preventing reproduction. If this were to continue, the future of the human race would be hugely dependent on scientific advancement.

Transgender issues now causing confusion

I recently read this article.

I have mentioned before (twice: here and here) that the current trend of gender indoctrination is an unrecognised form of child abuse.

The article I read shows that children can become confused with the current trend. The LGBT community want us to believe that transgenderism is normal and acceptance of it is part of a progressive society. Such cases of children being confused when their friend comes to school dressed as the opposite gender will be suppressed for the sake of their cause.

But what is the child to do? Should children be forced to accept transgenderism as normal? Because that could be seen in the same light as forcing a trans-obsessed person to remain the sex they were born with.

This article shows how autism is beginning to be ignored for the sake of transgenderism, preventing a young person from the help they really need.

Transgenderism is taking us to places which have quite horrific consequences.

What does "equality" really mean?

Equality has become one of those buzzwords. By saying, "For the sake of equality..." the implication is that if someone disagrees with you, they are prejudiced, sexist, intolerant, bigoted, or a number of other derogatory words.

But just what is equality?
It has it's roots in the word equal, of things being the same or of equal value. And yet, you look at society, and it seems that the quote from Animal Farm is more accurate, that "some... are more equal than others."

Over the course of history, due to the differences between men and women, certain 'gender roles' developed. Things like men being soldiers and hunters whilst women looked after the family and cooked. As time moved on, and the 'hunter-gatherer' theme diminished, a man's role was replaced with being the one to work. Much of the work could have been done by men or women, but due to historical influence, it was assumed to be the man's responsibility. With the feminist movement, this came to be seen as if special privileges were given to men, that men were 'more equal' than women.

Unfortunately, the feminist movement didn't stop with equality. Their crusade essentially became one of vengeance, of wanting 'one-up' on men, of women being 'more equal' for a change.

Personally, I am a big supporter of equality. But it has to be understood as equality. I believe that if two people are doing the same job, they should be paid the same amount, regardless of whether one is male and the other female.

But I like to ask the awkward questions: if I were to take the majority of a year off work to look after a child, should I expect to be paid for not working? It sounds harsh, because we live in a world which has 'maternity leave' and to suggest that a woman should surrender her income if she wants a family has come to sound abhorrent and unjust. With the increased financial responsibility of an additional person in the family, to surrender income seems like a double-whammy of hardship.

And so, equality laws have been made to allow for 'paternity leave': for the man to have time off work to help support the family with the new-born. However, this isn't exactly equal as the husband has far less time off than his wife.

But what about companies? Does a CEO really want to be paying employees for not working? The problem with the welfare state is that people are getting money for nothing. Just as people find ways around the system to claim large amounts of benefits to avoid working, so a woman could work up to a good job and then aim to have children at regular intervals so that she can work the minimum amount of time to then be eligible for the maximum amount of maternity leave. She would end up with a large family and a well-paid job without needing to work the whole time.

This is why equality is such a difficult issue.

And it's not helped with the current trend of entitlement. How often do young couples sit down and ask, "With our current income, can we afford to have a family?" How often does a husband change his job before having a family in order to better support having a family?

The current cultural trend is that a person should be allowed to do what they want, and the government (or employers) have to do their part to help that person.

And this is where society gets messy. Equality has become synonymous with entitlement, but it's more politically correct and persuasive.

Just think of a man saying to his employer, "Since women are entitled to maternity leave, how are you fulfilling your obligations to my entitlement to paternity leave?"
Compared with: "How does this company fulfil it's requirement of equality regarding paternity leave?"

Current societal trends are such that if a person can't get what they want, it must be an equality issue. Essentially, a selfish person can be represented as a victim of inequality.

For centuries - millennia, even - marriage has been between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is about people wanting to have their same-sex relationship elevated to the level of a real marriage. Throughout history, some men and women have engaged in homosexual activities, and they have known that it is against the natural order of things. But the current trend is to make out that this is an equality issue: that a person who chooses to engage in homosexual activity is entitled to the same 'rights' as heterosexual people who are legally married.

By treating it as an equality issue, we now have to consider the morality of allowing homosexual couples to adopt children: whether depriving those children of a mother or father (and the imbalance and mental problems that will cause) is more important than the 'equality' of viewing a same-sex partnership as a marriage.

The next big 'equality' issue is that of transgenderism. Healthcare was developed to fight illnesses and diseases, to prolong human life and to prevent it from ending prematurely. As experimentation continued, we now have the issue of whether someone who decides they want to be the opposite sex is entitled to have that operation under their standard medical care service. Should such a person be viewed as a person wanting plastic surgery to change their appearance, 'entitled' to have to pay the bill themselves?

It becomes an equality issue: that all people should be comfortable with their body (and that it is the healthcare service's duty to enable this). So what, then, do we make of the people who are not comfortable with their body and want plastic surgery for things other than genital mutilation?

But the 'equality' here is going too far. Already there are thoughts of lowering the age of starting medical treatment for a sex change, due to a mindset that children should be considered equal to adults. But this form of equality would cause significant moral issues: would a child be equal to an adult when it comes to, for example, drinking alcohol? Driving a car? Voting? Giving consent for a sexual relationship?

The equality argument is a pseudo argument.

Does equality mean that we should all be free to choose which sex we want to be?
Or should equality mean that we should all learn to live with the body we were born with?
Because even equality doesn't allow for us to choose the genitals we're born with.

It seems that some people feel that equality is about life being equally easy/difficult for each person. So if a person finds life really tough, allowances should be made for them.

But the truth is that life does not support equality. Some people find it easy to make money. Some people are more intelligent than others (some people use their intelligence too). Some people are more athletic. Some people can eat a huge meal and not put on weight. Humans are all different, but we have to live in the same world. We just have to "play the hand we're dealt".

Different people have different struggles and we just have to get through. Yes, we should help each other. We can't say, "Hey, I got dealt a bad hand, we need to change the game we're playing."

Essentially, it's the 'snowflakes' who want the allowances to be made. And that mindset is affecting older generations who now ask, "Well, why do they get special privileges?"

We need to help these people cope with life, not change the rules to suit themselves.

It's not about equality. The real issue is resilience.