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.

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.

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'?

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.

Political Correctness

Political Correctness

Fighting for your right to be offended.

Get a life, snowflake.

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?