LGBTQ+

Last year, I declared myself a springbok trapped in a human body. A springbok is a highly agile individual who is among the “least concern” species and resides in the southeastern part of the African continent. With such a declaration, some people will suggest that I am suffering from a condition known as species dysphoria, in which one thinks he is a wild animal trapped in a human body. Species dysphoria is similar to gender dysphoria, a condition in which a person believes he is a woman trapped in a male body or a man trapped in a female body.



Many people will argue that I am in need of psychological counseling. I’d dismiss such a suggestion as animal phobia. You might ask, “Williams, why in the world would you want to call yourself a springbok?” The reason is simple. There is nothing in the Internal Revenue Code that says springboks have a federal tax obligation. If government officials were to demand taxes, I would ask the U.S. Department of Justice to intercede, plus they would be reported to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.



In these modern times, reality is coming to be seen as optional. Say you are a man and want to be able to check out the ladies’ bathroom. You simply say you have transgendered yourself and are a lady. At schools, you could visit the ladies’ locker room and maybe even shower with the ladies. In the interest of equality, these options would also be open to those who think they are men trapped in women’s bodies and have transgendered themselves into men.



http://patriotrising.com/2016/05/25/can-trans-species-say-guess/

Mike
 
En als je niet kan kiezen, want je 'past' in geen enkel plaatje. Mag je dan voor 2 keuzes gaan? Belachelijk dit.
 
Glyfosaat van Monsanto veroorzaakt gruwelijke misvormingen bij dieren:

http://www.naturalnews.com/054129_g...mal_mutations_genetically_modified_crops.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/054140_glyphosate_GMOs_birth_deformities.html

Wat heeft dat met LBGTQ te maken, zul je je afvragen. Wat te denken van dit citaat uit het tweede artikel:



A study conducted by a team of researchers from Germany and Egypt found that pigs fed glyphosate spawned "mutant" offspring, plagued by malformations, missing eyes and transgender organ development.

Mike
 
Nog meer van Obama's waanzin:



Here are the even more noxious directives in the transgender letter, all issued in the name of creating and sustaining “inclusive, supportive, safe, and nondiscriminatory communities for all students”:

(1) School districts must allow biological males and females to spend the night together in the same hotel room on field trips.

(2) Colleges must let men who say they are “transgender” be roommates with one or more women.

(3) School officials cannot even tell those young women or their parents in advance that their new roommate is a man, without risking a federal lawsuit.

(4) The most noxious aspect of the “Dear Colleague Letter” is how the federal government defines “transgender.”

“Transgender” is entirely subjectively defined: a student becomes a member of the opposite sex the moment he or she feels like it. The instant he or she tells school officials about his/her feeling, they must immediately treat him/her as that gender. In the words of the “Dear Colleague Letter”:

“When a student or the student’s parent or guardian, as appropriate, notifies the school administration that the student will assert a gender identity that differs from previous representations or records, the school will begin treating the student consistent with the student’s gender identity.”

In other words, it’s all the student’s say so; school districts are prohibited even from seeking a medical diagnosis. As the letter says:

“Under [the Obama administration’s unilateral rewriting of] Title IX, there is no medical diagnosis or treatment requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite to being treated consistent with their gender identity.”

The student doesn’t have to have surgery or take hormone treatments. He can even continue to look and act as a male, but simply claims he “feels” like a female.

(5) Just as there is no minimum threshold required to qualify as transgender, there is no maximum limit to the number of times a student can change genders, for as CNN reported, “For some people, gender is not just about being male or female. In fact, how one identifies can change every day or even every few hours.” That means that one could be male during homeroom, female during gym class, then male again before he gets on the bus – and the school district is bound to comply every step of the way. (See also “The bi-gender boy who decides every morning what sex he wants to be“)

(6) Schools must provide “transgender” students proper housing:

“A school must allow transgender students to access housing consistent with their gender identity, and may not require transgender students to stay in single-occupancy accommodations or to disclose personal information when not required of other students.”

That means that a student who says he is really a female must be allowed to spend the night in the same room as female students, such as his girlfriend’s hotel room on a field trip, or even the room of a girl who isn’t his girlfriend.

Nor can his sharing of the room be chaperoned because under civil rights law, there can be no disparate treatment. If transgender students are chaperoned but “other” girls aren’t, that’s profiling and could trigger a federal civil rights lawsuit — which is already a reality.

https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2016/05/23/obamas-transgender-bathroom-directive-is-even-worse-than-you-think/

Mike
 
En als je niet kan kiezen, want je ‘past’ in geen enkel plaatje. Mag je dan voor 2 keuzes gaan?

Ik denk dat jij zojuist een nieuwe categorie hebt verzonnen: bigender!

;-)

Mike
 
Zo iemand staat dus voor de klas!



Leo Soell, who works as a fifth grade teacher at Gresham-Barlow school in Oregon, submitted a complaint to Oregon district officials that she had been “harassed” by colleagues after coming out as transgender last September.

In the complaint, she claimed that her co-workers continually called her “she,” “lady,” and “Miss Soell,” while other staff had conspired to stop her using a gender neutral bathroom, despite the school hosting an hour long training session on transgender issues.

Officials have refused to release the investigation’s findings publicly but have confirmed that they did not find any evidence of wrongdoing.

However, despite the verdict, the school decided to recompense Soell $60,000 on grounds of emotional damages, and district officials have confirmed they will introduce gender-neutral bathrooms in all local schools as a result.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/05/24/transgender-teacher-claims-60k-after-co-workers-use-wrong-pronoun/

6ebslLo.jpg


I7BbEyY.jpg


Mike
 
Ik hoop dat je je lach kunt inhouden. Er bestaan daadwerkelijk 'human pups':



While the pup community is a broad church, human pups tend to be male, gay, have an interest in dressing in leather, wear dog-like hoods, enjoy tactile interactions like stomach rubbing or ear tickling, play with toys, eat out of bowls and are often in a relationship with their human “handlers”.



https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-...ups-the-men-who-live-as-dogs?CMP=share_btn_fb

Misschien ook goed om te vermelden dat al deze 'pups' BLANK zijn. Ik heb het al eerder gezegd: there's something seriously wrong with the white race...

Mike
 
Ik heb trouwens op de Duitse TV eens een programma gezien, waar het om deze mensen ging. Ik kan het helaas niet op internet vinden. En die menshonden gingen ook aan de lijn en deden hun behoeften als een hond.
Er waren er ook als paard verkleed.
Echt ziekelijk.
Dorothé
 
Haha wat triest. Behandel ze dan ook maar zoals ze dieren behandelen. Spuitje geven als ze lastig zijn.

Joost
 
Alethea, dank wederom voor deze bijdrages. Tot nu toe heb ik alleen het eerste artikel gelezen. Enkele citaten en mijn reacties daarop:



Check out online services such as Modamily, that matches people with “parenting partners,” with whom they can draw up a contract, arrange for artificial reproductive technologies, and forgo marriage.

Dit is wat Aart ook propageert. Twee ouders kunnen een kind op de wereld zetten, zonder getrouwd te zijn of zelfs ook maar een relatie te hebben. Helaas is Aart ook geinfecteerd met het gedachtenvirus dat het heteroseksuele, monogame huwelijk een 'verouderd instituut' is.

Wat Aart kennelijk ontgaat is het MECHANISME van de staat hierachter, hier prima verwoord door deze auteur:





State recognition of this autonomy cannot exist without state recognition of marriage. In fact, traditional marriage — just like traditional oxygen if you will – helps all of society breathe more freely.

If civil marriage is abolished, you can say hello to the government at your bedroom door because that comfortable little meme about “getting the state out of the marriage business” will have flown out your bedroom window while you were sleeping.

Dan nog een laatste opmerking:

We might reasonably ask why this particular agenda is getting so much attention while the world goes to hell in a hand basket. Syria is overrun with vicious terrorist gangs at least as bad as its president. Russia is flexing its muscles, having just invaded the Ukraine and Crimea. Christians are being exterminated in record numbers throughout the Middle East. We’re looking at nuclear weapons in Iran. There’s a nuclear threat from North Korea, which not only starves its own people but is run by a guy who, it was said, feeds his political enemies to starving dogs. And yet President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry have been spending special quality time focusing on the LGBT agenda in in the poor countries of Africa?

Hoewel het punt van de auteur duidelijk is, nl. dat de LBGT-agenda wereldwijd wordt geexporteerd, zelfs naar ontwikkelingslanden, slaat zij de plank mis over de 'invasie' van De Krim en Oekraine door Rusland. Verder een prima artikel!

Mike
 
Helaas geeft het derde artikel van Alethea bij mij een leeg scherm, zowel in Firefox als in IE. Het tweede artikel is van dezelfde auteur als het eerste stuk en is nog veel sterker! Enkele citaten met mijn reactie:



Motherhood is the first and last line of defense against totalitarianism. If you think this statement sounds over the top, you ought to ponder why the family has always been the ultimate target of tyrannical systems of government such as communism. Advocates of cultural Marxism tend to view families as akin to subversive cells that get in the way of centralized state power.

En dat is wat voortdurend herhaald moet worden, willen we de agenda doorgronden: het betreft hier de AGENDA van CULTUREEL MARXISME. De tegenargumenten van Aart zijn allemaal persoonlijk, hij hamert ook op 'eigen ervaring' en probeert zo mijn argumenten weg te zetten als 'hypothetisch'. Dit is echter zeer echt en je hoeft er niet persoonlijke ervaring mee te hebben om het spel te doorzien. Integendeel zelfs, want Aart blijft hangen in zijn veel te kleine gezichtsveld, juist omdat het hem persoonlijk aangaat.



For illustration, let’s look at two examples that really stand out: the grandmother of former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and the mother of President Ronald Reagan. Through the lessons they imparted to their progeny, both women were fundamentally instrumental in ending the Cold War and the collapse of Soviet communism.

Opnieuw demonstreetr de auteur dat ze veel verstand heeft van de onderwerpen waarover ze schrijft, maar van geopolitiek geen kaas heeft gegeten en zelfs naief overkomt op dat vlak. Dit neemt echter niets weg van de strekking van haar artikel!



As all good totalitarians know, it is mothers—specifically, devoted and self-sacrificing mothers—who gum up the works of statist control in a society. Her crime is forging bonds of love, the self-sacrificing kind that don’t mix with big government schemes. Worse, when she forges these bonds within the context of a marriage covenant with the child’s father, she is exponentially more hazardous to the centralized state.
The child can see before his eyes the answer to his first existential question: ‘Where did I come from?’

M.a.w.: het monogame, heterseksuele huwelijk verschaft kinderen hun identiteit, stabiliteit en afkomst. Dit vormt de grootste bedreiging voor de cultureel marxistische agenda, die uitgaat van centralisering van de macht door de staat en vernietiging van het gezin als hoeksteen van de samenleving:



A healthy mother-child bond anchors and stabilizes children. It imbues them with a sense of security to go forth and explore the world and make friends. This is very bad for the grievance industry of central control. These bonds of loyalty produce a sense of joy. They end up unleashing innovation and industry, which the child then broadcasts into the greater community as an adult. This creates prosperity and well-being, also very bad omens for the statist.

Het 'do as thou wilt'-principe wordt hier goed verwoord:



As we travel that route, we see culture steering women towards adopting sexual behaviors that lead to them being exploited by men, all in the name of “equality.” We then also see women steered to view their children more as commodities to procure or dispose of at will than as lives to embrace unconditionally. We even see whole-hearted efforts from social engineers to strongly discourage single mothers from getting married. In the end, Big Brother gets women to give up their power and personal relationships by succumbing to him and his “freebies,” as advertised in the 2012 Obama campaign’s “Life of Julia” infographic (which is now all but scrubbed from the Internet.)

Dit zie ik bij de argumentatie van Aart ook terug. Alleen moeders zijn in staat om zich onvoorwaardelijk voor hun kinderen te geven. Dat kunnen moeders niet alleen, ze hebben daar ook de steun van vaders voor nodig in een heteroseksuel, monogaam huwelijk. Waarom is dat zo belangrijk? Waarom kunnen een homoman en een lesbivrouw dat niet net zo goed?



In essence, those attitudes promote totalitarianism because they all separate human beings from the regenerative bonds of kinship loyalty. Central planning is also an enemy of friendship, always having the effect of separating, isolating, and controlling people.

Daarom dus. Het gaat om een bloedband, het is BIOLOGISCH BEPAALD, geen sociale constructie!



But statists’ biggest prize, and their biggest obstacle, has always been the intimate bond between mother and child. The total woman feels this bond before she even has children. It causes her to seek out a permanent mate, enlisting him as ally and defender of their children.

Precies. De vader als partner en beschermer. Deze moet volgens de 'social engineers' z.s.m. worden uitgeschakeld, vandaar dat het systeem op de hand is van moeders en de voogdij vrijwel altijd toekent aan de moeder.



At the same time, social engineers are also deeply invested in polarization on a more macro scale. By stoking resentments of one identity group against another, Big Brother can create a culture of distrust between sexes, races, classes, religions, and so on. By cultivating the culture of death—including faceless and loveless sex, abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia, and infanticide—Big Brother further weakens the bonds of family and social trust.

Identiteiten worden tegenover elkaar opgezet, ook rassenidentiteiten. Maar wat te denken van kunstmatige identiteiten, zoals de transgender:





Statists have now deployed another weapon to weaken maternal bonds and separate mother from child. It’s the transgender ideology instantly spawned by the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision, which essentially outlawed recognizing marriage as the union of one male and one female. Transgender law takes “marriage equality” to the logical next step by ultimately abolishing legal recognition of biological sex distinctions.

In this way, biological mothers and biological fathers can be put on track to lose automatic recognition as legal parents to their child. As we change language and pronouns to suit gender ideology—and hence build a sexless society—the terms “mother” and “father” will legally be abolished. This is the bait-and-switch of the scam Big Brother has deceitfully named “equality.”

Maar ja, als ze maar gelukkig zijn. Ondertussen wordt elke notie van normaal en abnormaal op z'n kop gezet en raken we alsmaar verwarder over wat echt is en wat niet. Dit is een recept voor collectieve geestelijke gestoordheid!



In all of these programs, especially when forced on children in the schools, the child ends up displaced, deprived, and de-sexed. All are destabilizing influences that an attentive mother’s unmolested presence would neutralize. But devoted mothers are an obstinate breed. As C.S. Lewis wrote in his prescient 1947 essay “The Abolition of Man:” “We may well thank the beneficent obstinacy of real mothers, real nurses, and (above all) real children for preserving the human race in such sanity as it still possesses.”

Kideren raken gedeseksualiseerd en raken dus, verward als ze zijn over seksuele identiteit, bevattelijk voor gestoorde sociale constructies op basis van geslachtsverwarring en -verwisseling!

Mike
 
In Chrome werkt het wel. Is ook een klasse tekst:

A De-Sexed Society is a De-Humanized Society

As usual, tyranny comes disguised as “civil rights.”

The latest exhibit of this general rule is President Obama’s directive that seeks to force a transgender bathroom, locker room and dorm policy on the entire nation, starting with schoolchildren. Many of us are taken aback by this news, but we really shouldn’t be. The order is merely the latest incarnation of a long line of social engineering. The goal, as is always the case with such movements, is to remake humanity. What the people behind this latest version won’t tell you is that their project requires each and every one of us to deny our own humanity.

Let me explain.

The transgender movement has never been about “gender.” It’s all about sex. Sex is the real target. “Gender” is merely the politicized linguistic vehicle that facilitates a legal ban on sex distinctions. There aren’t a whole lot of dots to connect to uncover the logic of where this leads: if you abolish sex distinctions in law, you can abolish state recognition of biological family ties, and the state can regulate personal relationships and consolidate power as never before.

Let’s Review Reality

Physical reality exists independent of “gender identity non-discrimination” law—or any man-made law. Laws have no power to make reality go away, but they can change how people behave in response to reality. They can enforce disregard for reality through speech protocols, social and economic pressures, invasions of privacy, and thought policing. And that is what the effect of Obama’s executive order is all about.

It will serve to outlaw speech that identifies males as males and females as females. At the moment, it may not seem that way, since we see people striving to pass as one specific sex or the other. But, trust me, we’re all being forced to “transition” into conformity of thought. In New York, you can now be fined if you don’t re-engineer your speech (and thoughts) to align with new and ever-changing pronoun protocols.

We’re being pushed to “evolve” rapidly from laws that seem to allow male-female distinctions to laws that will categorically reject those distinctions in the not-too-distant future. Federal forms are already reflecting these changes by erasing sexed terms such as “mother” and “father.” And at every turn, we’re seeing the specific term “sex” replaced with the meaningless, ambiguous term “gender.”

This puts us on the path to banning recognition of the reality that every single human being exists through the union of one male and one female. There are no exceptions to this reality. You exist as the union of the two opposites through whom you were created.

So the administration’s action is an order for a somewhat suicidal type of behavior modification: it attempts to make us deny the reality of our humanity. In a real sense, this amounts to a denial of our very existence. All such denials of reality require heavy-handed censorship. We have already seen the governors of South Dakota and Georgia fold in the face of threats that federal funding would be withheld and big businesses would withdraw from the states if they attempted to enforce single-sex restrooms.

Without Sex, There Are No Families

What will happen when all of society is sexless in both language and law? If the law does not recognize your body as physically male or female—applying only the word “gender” to your internal, self-reported self-perception—does the law even recognize your body? Every single cell of you has either “male” or “female” written into its DNA, but the law refuses to recognize such categories. Such laws will only recognize an infinite, immeasurable “gender spectrum,” your place on which is determined only by your mind. So what exactly are you after the law has de-sexed you? In what sense is your body a legal entity?

And what happens to your familial relationships after the law has de-sexed you? Are they legally recognized? I don’t see how they could be. Certainly not by default, certainly not by the recognition that each child comes through the union of two opposite-sex parents.

In a society de-sexed by law, would the state recognize your relationship as a husband or a wife? Mother or father? Daughter or son? Those are all sexed terms. A system that does not recognize the existence of male and female would be free to ignore the parentage of any child. You might be recognized as your child’s “legal guardian,” but only if the state agrees to that. Anybody can be a guardian to your child if the state decides it’s in the child’s “best interest.” In this vision, there is nothing to prevent the state from severing the mother-child bond at will.

In such a scenario, the state controls all personal relationships right at their source: the biological family. The abolition of family autonomy would be complete, because the biological family would cease to be a default arrangement. The “family” would be whatever the state allows it to be. Again, in the de-sexed world of gender politics, all personal relationships end up controlled and regulated by the state.

Martha Fineman, a gender legal theorist, touched on this in her 2004 book The Autonomy Myth. In it, she argues for the abolition of state-recognized marriage because it allows for family privacy, writing that “Once the institutional protection [is] removed, behavior would be judged by standards established to regulate interactions among all members of society” (emphasis added).

Gender ideology is an effective statist tool. Cultural Marxists use it to corrupt language and sow confusion, especially among children. It paves the way for the removal of the institutional protections for freedom of association and family privacy that stand in the way of “regulating interactions among all members of society.”

How Could a Society Reject Its Own Freedom?

Getting free people to reject freedom may seem a tall order. How, you might ask, could people ever be convinced to let go of their families and consent to such a dystopian social structure? How do you get public opinion on board with an agenda that leads them to deny the reality of their own humanity?

There are lots of pieces to this puzzle, including the erosion of social trust, the breakdown of family, social polarization, and growing ignorance of history. But the groundwork has been laid over a long period of time.

First, virtually all outlets of communication had to be on board—Hollywood, academia, the media. Check. All medical personnel, particularly mental health personnel, had to be “educated” to comply with the transgender program or risk losing their licenses. Check. The educational establishment had to imbue schoolchildren with the ideology. Check. Large corporations had to get on board as stakeholders and enforcers. Check. And, of course, the push to legally de-sex society had to be embedded—Trojan Horse style—within a slightly less alien idea, with the slick slogan “marriage equality.” Check. Churches had to be brought on board so that even religion became a conduit for anti-truth. Check. Social, emotional, and economic pressures had to be established to censure anyone who dared to question the wisdom of it all. Check. Any such person had to be labeled a bigot, a hater, and a non-person. Checkmate.

At this point, the most primal and universal of human fears comes into play: the fear of being socially rejected. Self-censorship takes off. People start falsifying what they believe, until they eventually don’t even know what they believe anymore. Nobody can talk openly to one another. In the end, it’s as though we are each being marched into a separate solitary confinement cell. That’s what happens when free association takes a hit, when the state severs particular relationships in the name of a collective togetherness. Then, when we can’t verify reality with one another anymore—because we are so afraid of being ostracized—we end up living in an age of mass delusion.

The only way out is to affirm reality. We must reclaim our full humanity. Let’s start by reinjecting our language with one very good word that points to reality: sex. Yes, let’s revive the word “sex,” and use it generously whenever referring to the biological reality of our physical nature. (And spiritual nature too.) At the same time, let’s refuse—always—to use the word “gender” when we mean sex. It’s a poisoned and weaponized word that has been used to legally de-sex and thus dehumanize us all. We must work together to resist its deceptions.

Stella Morabito is a senior contributor to The Federalist and blogs about relationships, power, and freedom at stellamorabito.net.

 

Forum statistieken

Onderwerpen
4.541
Berichten
544.966
Leden
8.664
Nieuwste lid
pioenroos
Word vaste donateur van dit forum
Terug
Bovenaan