The Transgender Highway to a
Journey Through Contradiction, Simplistic Templates, and
UWFR Prediction Comes
three months after our prediction that the organized GBLT movement would try
to bring gender-neutral bathrooms to a location near you, the effort was brought
with full force to Houston. A new
ordinance, presented as an ‘emergency’ measure, sought to use transgender
people (previously referred to as transsexuals) as a vehicle for dislodging
the principle of identifying males and
females by biological reality (that is, by their actual body parts), for
public accommodation purposes. City
hall was packed for days of testimony with activists on both sides of the
Rights Ordinance introduced by Houston’s Mayor Anise Parker, the first
elected openly-gay mayor of a major American city, was backed by organized
far-left GBLT institutions based outside of Texas. It included a provision that spelled out
the requirement to allow anyone of any gender to go to in their bathroom of
their choice, with the only limitation being that they needed to “look” the
part. Any woman who objected to a
biologically male person from entering a women’s dressing room could be
fined, and possibly even arrested, for violating someone’s rights. That provision was ultimately removed from
the final law after some churches got wind of the emergency measure, and
True Lies, True Aims
purpose of this particular provision had nothing to do with transgender
needs, even if they were used as the excuse for the law. How do we know that? Their arguments reveal it. First, once one got past all the
accusations of bigotry against anyone who objected to the law, the main arguments
for supporting the new law were aimed at the ‘silliness’ of heterosexual
modesty. In other words, women who
said they were not comfortable with having a fully-equipped male sharing
their restrooms or dressing rooms were advised to ‘get over it,’ and that
being uncomfortable with members of the opposite sex in compromising
situations was backward and silly, and not a basis for continuing to deny a
transsexual person their right.
But, what is this right that is being, and
would continue to be, denied the transgender?
The answer is: the right to NOT
BE UNCOMFORTABLE in compromising situations with members of the
opposite “perceived” sex. So,
apparently, according to the GBLT leaders, it is unreasonable to expect the
one transgender person in 10,000 to be uncomfortable and put up with using
facilities with other people who ‘feel’ like the opposite sex, but it is not
unreasonable to expect the 9,999 others to ‘get over’ their discomfort with
someone who is actually
built like the opposite sex. In short,
the GBLT folks are saying that it is too onerous (and hateful) to expect the
transgender to do with perceptions and feelings what they now want all
heterosexuals to do with physical reality.
From the ‘Pro-Diversity’ Horse’s Mouth
Secondly, that genderless bathrooms are the
true goal was evidenced by the enormous amount of GBLT discussion online,
especially on Facebook, questioning the need for male and female bathrooms in
the first place. To wit, some sample comments:
need to go to THIS church in drag next Sunday and take a
s**t. F**k...WE ALL DO!!!!
Well since the Romans didn't finish
the job [of
killing all the Christians] someone has to do it.
Oops, sorry, wrong quotes. Those
were just a small sample of the comments displaying tolerance and respect for
diverse opinions by people who, no doubt, think of themselves superior in
intellect, tolerance, and compassion, than those they criticize.
Urinals Belong in Unisex Bathrooms!
These are some comments more
specific about their views on people’s objections to the ordinance as
I have never
understood the obsession with separate bathrooms anyway, honestly. With the exception
of urinals, it's all stalls, and I think the majority of the population
Unisex bathrooms are the norm. Not at all a surprise to be
standing at a urinal in a Paris bar, and have a woman enter to use a
stall. Why are Americans SO hung up on sex and bodily functions?
Note: Having been to Europe, this is
not the norm everywhere, but rather more commonly the norm in gay bars (as it
is in the U.S., and has been for years), and in bars that are not frequented
by conservative Jews, Muslims, or Christians.
These are not places where a guy is likely to bring his mother, so the
chances of him pulling out his member to relieve himself while she is next to
him washing her hands is nil. In any case, Europe is in a marriage and
childbearing crisis, where fewer and fewer Europeans are getting married and
having children. In fact, the native
population is declining, and is only being replenished by very conservative
Muslims coming in from outside Europe, most who have no tolerance for
anything approximating GBLT rights. Thus, Europe may not be a model we want
you have men's and women's rooms in your homes?
one is so stupid because it is trying to say we don’t need separate bathrooms
because we don’t have them in private homes.
But, all residential bathrooms are single person anyway, and that is
already allowed, and nobody is arguing about single-person bathrooms.
The point is, almost all the
logic argued by the GBLT folks was that the GBLT experience should applied to
everyone, by law if need be, and we don’t need separate bathrooms because all
gender differences are just artificial “socially-constructed” anyway.
Continued column 2 >
Ultrapolis World Forecast
Ultrapolis Project –
Cause Gains at Fort Worth Convention Center. Unknown to most people,
efforts by Log Cabin Republicans succeeded in removing some of the more
strident anti-gay language that had been in the platform for years. However, that success was overshadowed by
the introduction of a new plank into the platform calling for the state to
not prohibit reparative therapy. If
that sounds like a double negative, it is.
The plank is a reaction to new laws in California and New Jersey
prohibiting the delivery of such therapy.
the Houston Chronicle reported that the Texas State Party Chairman
publicly came out against the added plank.
More on this topic in our next issue.
What Happened to Trans
But, wait! Would this not be a problem for the transgender
person who is uncomfortable with sharing restrooms with members of the
perceived opposite sex? Was that not
the whole reason it was so important to let them in the ‘other’ bathroom? Did they not argue that it was “hateful”
to expect a pre-operation transgender person to use the bathroom that had
persons of the perceived opposite sex?
The answer, of course, is that this does not actually make any sense
- it is a blatant contradiction; the transgender are being used, and as a
constituency of somewhere between one in 10,000 to one in 20,000 people,
they have almost no voting footprint, even within the GBLT community.
There were other
arguments for and against the measure, and we do not have the room here to detail. Let me just add that on a broader level,
pro-gender neutrality folks likened the distinctions between male and
female to that of black and white races.
This is liberal-progressivism at its most intellectually lazy and
simplistic. Though scientific
evidence continues to pile up against their gender-neutral view of the two
sexes, they are stuck in the 1960’s, and they see everything through that
view. That the world is more complex
than that, and that human variations are not all of the same kind, escapes
them. And, this is the reason why I
touch again on this subject. There
are reasons for norms based on heterosexual behavior that are quite
fundamental that have developed over the centuries, but because they have
been taken for granted for so long, most people don’t really know how they
work; they simply follow them, as almost all humans do in most things, by
habit and gut reaction.
Perennial Advantage of
This is a very important
point, and one you will not hear at all in most mass media. We, as humans, follow hundreds, if not
thousands, of social norms every single day, even every hour and every
minute we are next to another human being.
We do not have the luxury of time to think and reason every single
act, so we act on habit, and the training and education we received as
children. They are built in as
emotional reactions on purpose, like recoiling from touching a stranger’s
bare skin, or being instinctively uncomfortable with burping in someone’s
face (if you are educated that way). Norms are meant to be automatic. The trade-off is that, unless we
actually spend time thinking about it, we are not generally prepared to
explain why each particular norm is important or how it affects society in
general, or even us in particular.
This is why revolutionaries always have an initial polemical
advantage. It is far easier to be
versed in arguments when you ardently oppose the status quo than when you
have paid no attention to it.
This is not to say norms
cannot or should not be changed. It
is to say that norms should be understood before they are considered for
change. And, no one should be
allowed to say that any person expressing an opinion that does not agree
with one’s own should be the target of verbal abuse, or outright punishment,
or to unilaterally declare any notion beyond discussion. To be clear, saying, “you are wrong”, or
“I object to your behavior on moral grounds” is not verbal abuse. Saying, or joking, that you wish a group
of people dead or killed, is.
the Heated Argument?
So, what is the source of
all this vitriol? Why is this
gender-neutral concept so important to the left-controlled GBLT movement,
and the left in general? By the same
token, many people who strongly support this concept ask me why I care so
much to oppose it anyway (they
usually say this when they are running out of arguments). My answer is, if it is not important, why
do they care so much to support
it so strongly? In any case, most GBLT
people, probably because of their own personal struggles with their
sexuality during adolescence, are intensely attuned to their sense of
self-esteem, and often couple it with a nurtured resentment toward
society’s norms. So, they attack
anything that makes them feel, even in the slightest way, as “less than”
the general population, and a social norm making a distinction at all makes
them feel that way.
Again, this is part of
the larger far left-wing, liberal-progressive movement, where, for example,
women’s self-esteem is actually being used as a formal argument to force
the military to include women in combat – despite the fact that 9
out of 10 women in the service oppose the move, and despite studies
that have suggested problems with this.
It is not about women in the service or about an effective military;
it is about far-left, liberal-progressive women not wanting to feel that
there is a difference between them and men by way of acknowledging a
distinction that might suggest
that, as a group, they are not ‘equal’ to men in physical strength. This is
not a secret – they openly say self-esteem is a primary issue.
This is too bad, because
people focused on self-esteem will always be unhappy. There is no way to be equal to, or be the
same as, every other person in every way possible.
Continued column 3 >
A person who is blind or
deaf is not “less than” most other people.
But, the disadvantage of blindness or deafness is real, even if it
does enhance other senses. Yet,
even there we now have folks who want to deny children the opportunity to
hear, lest it imply that being deaf is not “as good as” hearing. (Please, I am fully aware that the
arguments are more nuanced than that, but that is the end result of these
new notions – to say that never hearing Mozart’s “Ode to Joy” is just as
good as hearing it, is to justify denying some children a chance at being
part of the larger world, of enjoying it in greater measure, all in the
name of the self-esteem of those who will never be able to hear anything).
Path of Denial
No matter how many rules
we change, how much we try to force others to act like they agree, or how
much we change words to obscure the reality of the human differences, we
all essentially know what we see – and what others see. That’s why some people get so angry at
the mere suggestion that a difference in them has a real consequence in
life – because deep down, they are afraid it is true.
The Path of Knowing
I am different than most
people, probably in more ways than most, and in many ways not for the
better. Many of my personal traits
are not an advantage, and I would not promote their emulation, nor demand
The way I see it, the
thing to do when one has a peculiar situation is to face it, accept it, and
then do the best one can to not disrupt everyone else’s life just to
accommodate one’s own sense of self - or aid comfort in one’s own skin.
The way I see it, only
then can one walk among the others, sure-footed in the knowledge that one’s
sense of self is not dependent on anything those others, kind or not, will
ever say or do.
from the Gender
Bodies Under Attack
On April Fool’s Day of this
year, students at the esteemed Ivy League Dartmouth College, occupied the
college president’s office in attempt to force the president to implement
demands regarding a wide range of issues, including gender-neutral
bathrooms, the right to be treated as any gender regardless of actual
physical identity, and to free sex-reassignment surgery (end to end, this process
can cost up to $50,000, plus ongoing expensive hormone therapy). Without these demands in place, the
students said their “bodies are already on the line, in danger and under
attack at Dartmouth.” This was no
Required GBLT Classes
On April 30, at the
University of Minnesota, similar
demands were presented to the school’s administrators, and were signed
by 700 faculty and students. The
administration says the group presenting the demands refuses to discuss the
demands. Included among them are, of
course, more gender-neutral bathrooms (already available at the
university), and that “all students be required to take one course
that deals with gender non-conforming issues in the Gender, Women, and
Sexuality Studies Department or any of the courses endorsed by the
GLBTA Programs Office.”
Murder = Free Trans Surgery
In January of this year, A
federal appeals court ruled that a person who violently murdered
his/her wife (and mother of their son) with a wire, nearly severing her
head, was entitled to a costly taxpayer-paid sex-reassignment surgery. This free benefit is not available to
most transgender people who have not violently murdered another
human being. The cost of the benefit
is equal to about the total federal income taxes paid by a middle
class household over a period of four to five years.
To Cut or Not to Cut
On June 13 (June
12 online), The Wall Street Journal
published a highly controversial opinion column authored by Dr. Paul
McHugh, titled “Transgender
Surgery Isn't the Solution”, questioning the value of sex-reassignment
surgery. A response column in Media
Matters hotly challenged the claims by Dr. McHugh. In our review of both columns, only the
first cited specific studies to support its position (though some were
old), while the second only presented the stated positions of the American
Psychological and American Psychiatric Associations. It appears that there is not much current
research in this area today.
record cannot be beat. One can
follow the herd chasing the latest hyperbolic, melodramatic, and
soon-forgotten micro-trend on Facebook and Twitter, or one can be wisely
and judiciously in front of it with UWFR.
Comments may be directed to email@example.com,
or if you receive the newsletter email, also via a reply to the email
address from which you receive it. OR CLICK BELOW